Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

London and North Eastern Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Grimsby Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

PERSONS IN RECEIPT OF POOR RELIEF IN ENGLAND AND WALES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Return be made showing the number of persons in receipt of Poor Relief in England and Wales on the night of the 1st day of January, 1936 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 96, of Session 1934–35)."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

Mr. THORNE: How long will it be before this Paper is ready for publication?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): Perhaps a week or two.

Question put, and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES (BRITISH CONSULATES).

Mr. DAY: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of consul-generals, consuls, and vice-consuls, salaried or unsalaried, which His Majesty's Government has in the United States of America?

Captain EUAN WALLACE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a similar question by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) on 22nd May.

Mr. DAY: Is the Minister satisfied that we have sufficient consular representation in America?

Captain WALLACE: That point does not arise; perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to put it down.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make with reference to the future place of residence of the Emperor of Ethiopia; and whether the Emperor proposes to visit Geneva?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): His Majesty's Government have no official information regarding the points raised by the hon. Member.

Mr. MANDER: Has the right hon. Gentleman any opportunity of personal contact with the Emperor?

Mr. EDEN: If I have, it remains true that his movements will be a matter for the Emperor himself to decide.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position with regard to the use of the railway between Jibuti and Addis Ababa?

Mr. EDEN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on this subject to my hon. Friend the Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams) on 25th May, to which I have nothing to add.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (BRITISH NOTE).

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make with reference to the questionnaire recently submitted to the German Government; and when a reply may be expected?

Mr. GARRO JONES: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have yet received any further information in regard to the peace and disarmament plan of the German Government?

Mr. EDEN: His Majesty's Government have not yet received a reply to the communication addressed to the German


Government through His Majesty's Ambassador in Berlin on 6th May. On 23rd May His Majesty's Ambassador was instructed to communicate again with the German Government and to remind them of the desire of His Majesty's Government to receive a reply to their previous communication. Sir E. Phipps was further asked to emphasise that His Majesty's Government were anxious to elucidate as soon as possible the points which were not clear to them in the German Government's memoranda of the 7th, 24th and 31st March. The purpose of His Majesty's Government was to secure that general negotiations should be opened for the conclusion of Western and Eastern European security arrangements and the return of Germany to the League, with a view to the permanent solution of the continuing situation created by the German Government's action of 7th March. In reply it was intimated to Sir Eric Phipps on 26th May that no reply would be forthcoming until after the formation of the new French Government.

Mr. MANDER: Is not the German Government really waiting for the British Government to make up its mind about collective security?

Mr. EDEN: Certainly not. There is no reason whatever why these questions should not be answered. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion, I hope, will receive no support anywhere.

Mr. GARRO JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that the German Government previously expressed the opinion that, until the question of sanctions was disposed of, the time would not be opportune to discuss any new arrangements; and is this still acting as an obstacle to the opening of fresh negotiations?

Mr. EDEN: I cannot answer for the German Government; I can only answer for our own; and in our view we ought to make progress as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

SMUGGLING.

Mr. McENTEE: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make any further statement with regard to the smuggling in Northern

China to the detriment of British trade and finance?

Mr. MOREING: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has received to his representations to the Japanese Government on the question of the growth of smuggling in North China; and whether he has been able to obtain an assurance from the Japanese Government that the Chinese Customs officers on sea and land will in future not be prevented from carrying out their duties without hindrance and without limitation on the arms they may carry for the purpose?

Mr. EDEN: The situation in general remains unchanged. The reply of the Japanese Government was outlined in the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Mr. Chorlton) and the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) on 20th May. No specific assurance of the kind to which my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Moreing) refers has yet been obtained, but, as a result of further representations made by His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo, an official of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been sent to investigate the situation. I trust that the outcome may be that the Customs preventive services may once again be allowed to exercise their due authority in the affected area.

Mr. CHORLTON (for Mr. MOREING): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will inquire of the Japanese Government whether the increase of the Japanese garrison at Tientsin to 10,000 will be used to assist the Chinese authorities to prevent smuggling of goods into China by Japanese subjects?

Mr. EDEN: I have no information on the specific point raised by my hon. Friend, but His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo has reported that the Japanese Government are calling the attention of the Japanese military authorities in North China to the whole problem of smuggling.

JAPANESE GARRISON (NORTH CHINA).

Mr. CHORLTON (for Mr. MOREING): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any alteration of strength of the Japanese garrison in North China has taken place since 1st


May; and whether he can state the total number of effectives which the Japanese Government intend to keep there in the near future?

Mr. EDEN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday on this point to a question asked by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) to which I have nothing to add.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make on the progress of the Anglo-Egyptian negotiations?

Mr. EDEN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) yesterday, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. LEWIS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further statement to make as to the negotiations with the Egyptian Government on the subject of a new constitution for Egypt?

Mr. EDEN: My hon. Friend appears to be under a misapprehension. No negotiations are proceeding, or are contemplated, between His Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Government on the subject of a new constitution for Egypt.

Oral Answers to Questions — CEYLON.

Mr. MAXTON: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any report of the strike at the naval station at Trincomalle; what were the grievances of the men affected; and whether any steps have been taken to remedy the grievances?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I have not yet received the report for which my predecessor asked, but, as soon as I do, I will communicate with the hon. Member.

Mr. MAXTON: Surely one can get a thing of this sort from Ceylon in less than a month?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The ordinary mail takes a fortnight each way, and I

gather that, before the Governor reports, he wants to have a detailed investigation.

Mr. MAXTON: Are there not men working directly for the British Government at the naval station, and should not they have some information as to the conditions under which these men are working?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That is a question for the Admiralty; they are not appointed by a Colonial Government.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received the report from the Governor of Ceylon with regard to the recent electoral disturbances?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have just received the report, but as a number of cases arising out of the elections are still sub judice, consideration of the question of publication must be deferred.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA AND RHODESIA.

Mr. PILKINGTON: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any closer political amalgamation in either East Africa or the Rhodesias is being considered; and whether he can make any statement of policy thereon?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, Sir.

Mr. PILKINGTON: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he intends to receive a deputation from Southern Rhodesia concerning amalgamation with Northern Rhodesia?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No request that a deputation should be received has yet been forwarded to His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

SERVICE, SCANDINAVIA.

Mr. LEWIS: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how soon it is expected that the subsidised air service to Scandinavia will be in regular operation?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): It is at present anticipated that the regular service will commence early next month.

WIND-TUNNELS.

Mr. GARRO JONES: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many apparatus known as wind-tunnels are available to assist in the solution of aerodynamic problems and the testing of wing surfaces?

Sir P. SASSOON: There are in all 14 wind-tunnels of various sizes and characteristics at Government establishments. Five of these wind-tunnels are at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, and nine at the National Physical Laboratory. With the exception of one tunnel at Farnborough they are equipped to take models only, not full-scale aircraft fuselages. There are also some wind-tunnels at the works of private firms, and at certain Universities.

Mr. GARRO JONES: Are any experiments in aero-dynamic problems being held up on account of the fact that there is only one full-sized tunnel available?

Sir P. SASSOON: No, Sir; the provision is quite adequate.

Mr. GARRO JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many civil aviation problems are being held up on account of the fact that there is only one tunnel available? That is equally important, if not more important, than the military problem.

Sir P. SASSOON: Perhaps the hon. Member will tell me what problems.

Mr. GARRO JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that he himself said that experiments on the dangers of the "Flying Flea," for example, could not be carried out owing to the fact that there was only one tunnel available?

Sir P. SASSOON: We are in the midst of a very important programme at Farnborough, but, if a "Flying Flea" is sent, we will undertake to carry out experiments on it with the minimum possible delay. I would point out, however, that experiments on one "Flying Flea" would not apply to many other types of Flea.

AFRICA (SERVICE).

Mr. LIDDALL (for Mr. LYONS): asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air at whose request the African service of Imperial Airways terminated at Johannesburg instead of at Cape Town as formerly; and the nature of the

co-ordination and financial association between Imperial Airways and South African Airways, Limited'?

Sir P. SASSOON: The change of terminus was made in accordance with the wishes of the Government of the Union of South Africa as a preparatory step towards the introduction of the Empire Air Transport Scheme. The co-ordination between Imperial Airways and South African Airways takes the form of a close working arrangement which should ensure a satisfactory through service. This includes through bookings and reciprocal publicity as regards time tables. There is no financial association between the two undertakings.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: Is it not the fact that the aeroplanes in use between Johannesburg and Cape Town are all of German origin?

Sir P. SASSOON: It is an internal service operated by the Union of South Africa. They work in the closest possible co-operation with Imperial Airways.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

Mr. LEWIS: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any further statement to make as to the disturbances in Palestine?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have nothing to add to the full statements which I made in the House yesterday.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE.

AIR ARMAMENT CONTRACTS.

Mr. GARRO JONES: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the system known as provisional Instructions to Proceed, under which no price is affixed to air armament contracts, has yet been superseded by a more normal procedure?

Sir P. SASSOON: The system of commencing work under Instructions to Proceed is still being extensively utilised in order to ensure that prices are not determined until all necessary data are available, while at the same time manufacture of urgent requirements is not delayed.

GOVERNMENT'S PLANS.

Mr. SHINWELL: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, for what purpose the plans he is now preparing and the rearmament programme of the Government are intended; and whether they are concerned solely with the defence of the shores or are intended to protect our interests in other parts of the world?

The MINISTER for the CO-ORDINATION of DEFENCE (Sir Thomas Inskip): The object of the Government's plans was explained in Cmd. Paper 5107, and has been elaborated in detail in successive Debates. In reply to the second part of the question, the plans are devised for the protection of all His Majesty's subjects.

Mr. SHINWELL: Are we to understand that the extended forces that are in contemplation are, in the opinion of the Government, adequate for the purpose?

Sir T. INSKIP: The Government have made proposals which they asked the House to treat for the time being as adequate.

Mr. SHINWELL: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether any estimate has been prepared, or is in course of preparation, showing what forces are required for the protection of all parts of the Empire; whether, in the event of war breaking out simultaneously in the Mediterranean and in the Far East, adequate forces are available for the protection of our interests in China and the Dominion of Australia; and whether these matters are being considered in relation to the respective policies of isolation, of a military and naval alliance with other nations, or within the framework of the League of Nations?

Sir T. INSKIP: All the aspects of Imperial Defence referred to in the question were considered when the Government's plans for re-conditioning the Forces were formulated, and are kept under constant consideration.

Mr. SHINWELL: Are we to understand that it is in contemplation that, in the event of hostilities breaking out in any part of the Empire, for example in the Pacific, we can, in a state of isolation, undertake the task of defence?

Sir T. INSKIP: I am not prepared to attempt to deal with a hypothetical question of that nature by the method of question and answer.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is not the Defence programme itself based upon a hypothesis?

WHEAT STOCK.

Mr. LIDDALL: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he can now state what steps have been taken to build up in this country a reserve of wheat sufficiently large to meet any contingencies likely to arise in the event of war?

Sir T. INSKIP: The question of a sufficient wheat reserve will be considered by the committee which is now engaged in examining the whole subject of food supplies in time of war. At the present time, including the balance of the home crop, the wheat in public granaries and millers' stores and flour in the hands of millers, bakers and retailers, the effective stock of wheat and flour in this country is understood to be about equal to three months' consumption. This figure does not include wheat normally on passage, which might amount to a further month's consumption.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

BAKERLOO RAILWAY (EXTENSION).

Mr. DAY: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the congestion of traffic in the district of the Elephant and Castle and the difficulties experienced by persons residing at or near this junction in obtaining a conveyance to proceed to or from their employment during the rush hours of the day, he will make representations to the London Passenger Transport Board to continue the present tube system from the Elephant and Castle to Camberwell?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The London Passenger Transport Board inform me that on completion of the works at present in hand they will consider further the question of extending the Bakerloo Line to Camberwell.

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation from the local council?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It would hardly be appropriate for me to receive it.

WARNING NOTICES, LANCASHIRE.

Mr. W. A. ROBINSON: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has any further information regarding the fatal accident to Robert Percival Griffin, on 17th April, as he was riding a motorcycle and struck a heap of tar and macadam which had no red flags or danger signals exhibited near it; will he call for a report from the Lancashire County Council as to the absence of danger signals; and what steps will be taken to prevent a repetition of this accident?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I understand that the Coroner's jury returned a verdict of death by misadventure. I have been in communication with the county council and am informed that they are taking steps to ensure that in future their regulations as to the display of warning notices are strictly complied with.

Mr. ROBINSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is alleged that frequent complaints have been made against the non-provision of danger signals on roads controlled by the Lancashire County Council?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This is, of course, the responsibility of the local highway authority, but I was impressed by the suggestion of the hon. Member and made representations to them and received a satisfactory reply.

Mr. ROBINSON: You accept that as satisfactory?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: For the future.

LEVEL CROSSINGS.

Mr. McENTEE: asked the Minister of Transport the number of level crossings that have been abolished during the past 12 months; and the cost?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: During the past 12 months three level crossings have been abolished and four other crossings, although not closed, can now be avoided by through traffic owing to the construction of bridges on by-pass roads. The total cost was £403,580. In the same period I have made grants to schemes estimated to cost £249,513 which will, in due course, enable two level crossings to be closed and two others avoided.

Mr. McENTEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any special steps in view of the great danger?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Member will be aware of the encouragement I have given to highway authorities in this matter.

MOTOR DRIVING TESTS.

Mr. McENTEE: asked the Minister of Transport the number of men and women that have been examined for the driving test up to the last available date; and the number that have failed?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Up to and including 30th May, 316,886 persons have been examined, of whom 57,594 failed to satisfy the examiners. From 6th May, 1935, since when separate records for men and women have been kept, to 30th May, 1936, the figures are:

Men examined, 234,827—Failed, 41,083 (17.4 per cent.).
Women examined, 55,248—Failed, 14,094 (25.5 per cent.).

Mr. THURTLE: Do the right hon. Gentleman's records show that women examiners fail a smaller percentage of the people who apply than men examiners?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I should hope that both discharge their duties with precision and satisfaction.

Mr. LEVY: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate making any arrangements whereby those drivers who are prone to accidents shall be forced to go through some such test in the hope that they will be eliminated?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: When this matter comes up for consideration and review my hon. Friend's suggestion will be borne in mind.

CO-ORDINATION.

Mr. PARKINSON: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is able to report what progress is being made by the Transport Advisory Council in connection with its inquiry into the coordination of transport; and when a report from the council on this matter can be expected?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I imagine that such an investigation will be lengthy.

TRUNK ROAD SCHEMES (SCOTLAND).

Captain McEWEN: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will give a list of the counties of Scotland which are getting more than 80 per cent. in respect of grants for trunk road schemes and a statement of the consolidated rates levied within those counties during the year 1935–36?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: With my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the list for which he asks. As regards the second part of his question, I am sending him a copy of a return giving information as to the rates levied in Scotland.

Following is the information:


Counties in Scotland entitled to grants of more than 80 per cent. in respect of Trunk Road schemes.


Aberdeen.
Kirkcudbright.


Angus.
Lanark.


Argyll.
Moray and Nairn.


Ayr.
Ross and Cromarty.


Banff.



Berwick.
Roxburgh.


Caithness.
Stirling.


Dumfries.
Sutherland.


Inverness.
West Lothian.


Kincardine.
Wigtown.

ROAD MAINTENANCE.

Captain STRICKLAND: asked the Minister of Transport whether, on the discontinuance of the block grant of £6,500,000 from the Road Fund, the new expenditure will have to include that amount or be additional to the normal maintenance?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The block grant will be borne on the Vote for which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is responsible. The position of the local authorities is therefore in no way prejudiced.

MOTOR SPEEDING (NORTH LONDON ROADS).

Mr. CROWDER: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that his Department is now receiving complaints that on certain roads where there is no speed limit on the outskirts of cities motorists are travelling too fast, he can state which roads in the vicinity of North London are the subject of such complaints?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will, with permission, circulate the names of the roads in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

Barnet By-Pass (A.555), (Aylmer Road), (Lyttleton Road), (Falloden Way).

Watford By-Pass (A.500).
Cambridge Arterial Road (A.108).
North Circular Road (A.406).

SPEED LIMIT (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. PARKINSON: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of persons who have been summoned for exceeding the 30 miles per hour speed limit during the past 12 months?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The latest figures available are for the year ended 31st December, 1935. During the year proceedings were taken in 77,365 cases for exceeding the speed limit of 30 miles per hour in built-up areas and in 1,899 cases for exceeding the speed limit of 30 miles per hour which is applicable on all roads to passenger vehicles designed to carry more than seven passengers. Detailed statistics of offences relating to motor vehicles can be found in the Return for 1935, which was presented to Parliament on 25th May.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL PARKS (REFRESHMENTS).

Mr. DAY: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider the appointment of a Departmental Committee to inquire into the supply of light meals and refreshments and the charges for them as supplied in the Royal parks under the control of the Office of Works, in order that suggestions can be made for the improvement of present facilities?

Mr. LLOYD: I have been asked to reply. Exhaustive inquiries were recently made by the Office of Works with a view both to improving the facilities and lowering the general level of charges for refreshments in the Royal parks, and a contract on a new basis was arranged last March. The results of these inquiries were reflected in the terms of the contract, and it is not considered that any useful purpose would be served by the further inquiry which the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. DAY: Were the contracts put out to tender?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE (STATISTICS).

Mr. T. SMITH: asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of acres at present under wheat, oats, and barley cultivation, and comparable figures for the previous three years?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Ramsbotham): Particulars of this year's acreage under wheat, oats and barley will not be available until early in August. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the figures for 1933, 1934 and 1935.

Following is the statement:

The acreages under wheat, barley and oats in 1933, 1934 and 1935, according to the returns made by occupiers of holdings of more than one acre in extent in England and Wales, were:


Year.
Wheat.
Barley.
Oats.



acres.
acres.
acres.


1933
1,660,339
751,340
1,494,797


1934
1,759,448
860,598
1,402,017


1935
1,772,332
791,653
1,418,626

Oral Answers to Questions — CADET MOVEMENT (GRANTS TO LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES).

Mr. DONNER: asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of his Department to contribute towards the expenses of camps held by the cadet movement during the current financial year?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir Victor Warrender): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 7th April to a similar question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Clifton Brown), a copy of which I am sending to him.

Mr. CARTLAND: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps have been taken to take advantage of the existing cadet movement in connection with recruiting for the Regular and Territorial Army?

Sir V. WARRENDER: Cadet units enrolled under the British National Cadet Association may be affiliated to units of the Regular or Territorial Army and reliance is placed upon such affiliations to encourage boys to pass from their cadet unit to the unit to which they have been affiliated.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: Might not still greater encouragement be shown if cadet corps were recognised?

Sir V. WARRENDER: There is another question on the Paper.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: asked the President of the Board of Education whether it is the intention of his Department to restore official recognition to the cadet movement in this country?

Mr. EMMOTT: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will consider allowing certain expenditure in connection with the cadet movement to rank for grant to local education authorities?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Oliver Stanley): Cadet corps have never received official recognition from the board, and for many years past expenditure of a general character on cadet corps has not been recognised for grant. Before 1931, where local education authorities paid the whole or part of a poor pupil's subscription to the corps, such expenditure was recognised by the board for purposes of grant. Since that year expenditure of this character has not been recognised for grant purposes, but I now propose to revert to the practice which obtained before 1931.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY (UNIFORMS).

Mr. KEELING: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that many municipalities are substituting stainless steel for brass buttons and badges on the uniforms of their staffs; and whether, to save unnecessary cleaning, he will make a like change in military uniforms?

Sir V. WARRENDER: I can assure my hon. Friend that the possibility of adopting badges and buttons for the Army of a metal less tarnishable than brass has not been overlooked. Such a change, however, is regarded as impracticable, mainly on the grounds of cost and unsuitability for active service.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIRE PRECAUTIONS (SCHOOLS AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS).

Mr. KELLY: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has received reports as to school buildings and their protection from fire; and what steps have been taken to issue recommendations on fire prevention to all schools, public and private?

Mr. STANLEY: If in the course of inspection His Majesty's inspectors find that the safeguards against fire are inadequate, the attention of the school authorities is called to the matter. The Home Office handbook, "Fire Precautions in Schools," has been brought to the notice of local education authorities and the governors and managers of schools recognised by the Board in the Board's Circular 1446 dated 20th January, 1936, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Mr. KELLY: In view of the fact that the handbook was issued some years ago, and there is some doubt about it being up-to-date, will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter?

Mr. STANLEY: That question should be put to the Home Office, which is responsible for the preparation of the handbook.

Mr. KELLY: asked the Minister of Health whether recommendations have been made to hospitals and other institutions as to the prevention of and protection from fire; and whether any committee of experts has been appointed to deal with these dangers?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): No general recommendations have been issued by my Department, but attention is drawn to the importance of this matter when plans of buildings are being considered, or otherwise as occasion arises. My right hon. Friend is not aware that any committee of experts has been appointed to deal with safeguards against fires at institutions.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUDGET DISCLOSURE INQUIRY.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S STATEMENT.

Mr. ATTLEE (by Private Notice): asked the Attorney-General whether he has come to any decision on the question

of proceedings arising from the report of the Budget Disclosure Inquiry Tribunal?

Mr. GALLACHER: On a point of Order. I am in a difficulty, Mr. Speaker, and I want your Ruling. I am of opinion that it is out of order for the Attorney-General to make a statement at this time, that this House has a duty to discuss the report presented to the Government, and to take a decision of its own as to whether those who are affected by the report are fit to be Members of this House or not. We are entitled to have that discussion before we get a decision from the Attorney-General, because if he makes a decision in favour of the prosecution then we cannot discuss it. This House has a responsibility to discuss the report now, and take a decision.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order. A question has been put to the Attorney-General, and he may answer it.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I have considered the question whether I should institute criminal proceedings under the Official Secrets Act against all or some of those affected by the findings of the Tribunal recently set up by Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921. I consider in the first place what evidence would be available in a criminal trial. This involved questions of some difficulty as to the admissibility and effect of statements made to that Tribunal by those whose conduct is in question. The House will not expect me to go in detail into the various legal considerations, but I may say that there cannot be an offence of receiving information under Section 2 (2) of the Act unless an offence of an unauthorised communication under Section 2 (1) is first proved. That unauthorised communication must, in my opinion, be deliberate. This is a point of importance, as under our law an accused is entitled to the benefit of every doubt, and if there were a doubt as to whether any disclosure was deliberate or inadvertent, the accused would be entitled to be acquitted.
I have also had in mind considerations based on the general principles on which criminal justice is administered in this country. Much of the relevant evidence


in my possession was given by those whose conduct is now in question to a Tribunal with wide powers of summoning witnesses and calling for documents. I am not, of course, suggesting that in no case should a prosecution follow on the report of such a Tribunal, but it would be somewhat foreign to our general methods that information which results from the existence or exercise of wide powers of compulsory interrogation and discovery of documents of this kind should be made the basis of a subsequent criminal charge. There is a further point. In a criminal trial the fundamental principle is that the jury should act, and act only on the evidence called before them at the trial. It would, of course, in this case be impossible to obtain a jury who were not familiar with the findings of the Tribunal, and indeed with much of the evidence called before them. I have in these circumstances decided not to institute criminal proceedings.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the Attorney-General aware that in its findings, the Tribunal did not suggest that the disclosure of the information was inadvertent? They made no suggestion of that kind at all.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I was not dealing, as the House will appreciate, with the findings of the Tribunal. I was dealing with the evidence which would be available should criminal proceedings be instituted.

Mr. ATTLEE (by Private Notice): asked the Prime Minister what action he proposes to take on the report of the Budget Disclosure Inquiry Tribunal?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The Attorney-General's decision has cleared the way for the Debate too morrow. I understand my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Balham and Tooting (Sir A. Butt) wish to make personal statements at the end of Questions to-morrow, and they will be in their places for that purpose. I am sure the House will approve this course. In these circumstances, I do not think we should anticipate to-day the course of to-morrow's proceedings, but, in order to secure full range for the Debate, we

will put on the Paper to-night a Motion for to-morrow in the following terms:
That the report of the Tribunal appointed under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, be now considered.

Mr. GALLAGHER: I am concerned with regard to what would have been ruled out if the Attorney-General had taken a decision to prosecute. Have not the Government a responsibility, having appointed a Commission of Inquiry and got its report, to come forward and make recommendations regarding that report or regarding a decision arising out of that report? Surely the Government cannot walk away from its responsibility?

Mr. ATTLEE: May I take it that the Prime Minister, following the statements which are to be made by the two hon. Members, will himself give his opinion on the subject of the report?

The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly, I propose to take part in the proceedings, but I am quite certain that no Member of the House will desire to prejudge the statements that will be made.

Mr. THURTLE: Arising from the statement of the Prime Minister, may I ask whether he does not think that he, as Leader of the House, has a responsibility to make some declaration upon the findings of the Tribunal?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am quite aware of my responsibility, and I shall do my best to exercise it in the way I think best.

Mr. GALLACHER: I want to put a question, and I want an answer. Do the Prime Minister and the Government accept the findings of the Tribunal?

Mr. HARDIE: On a point of Order. I want to know whether it is in order for the Government to set up a tribunal and get its report, and then say that no decision can be taken until statements are made by those who have been accused and who have been found guilty by that tribunal?

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Mr. SPEAKER: No point of Order arises.

Mr. HARDIE: It is a point of Procedure in regard to this matter.

Mr. SPEAKER: There is a very old Rule of this House in regard to the Privilege which Members have.

Mr. THURTLE: Will it be in order to-morrow to move a manuscript Amendment to the Motion which is to be moved by the Prime Minister?

Mr. SPEAKER: It will be in order to move an Amendment, but before I say that the Amendment will be in order I must see the Amendment.

Mr. HARDIE: If any decision is taken to-morrow by the House which goes against the findings of the Tribunal, what then will be the position?

Mr. SPEAKER: We had better see what happens in the Debate.

Mr. HARDIE: It will be too late then.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister for what reason he is proposing to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-night?

The PRIME MINISTER: We shall report Progress in Committee on the

Finance Bill at 7.30 p.m. We hope afterwards to conclude the Committee stage of the Air Navigation Bill and the Pensions (Governors of Dominions, etc.) Bill. We are suspending the Eleven o'Clock Rule for this purpose. There is one other Order which, I think, is non-contentious, and might be disposed of, namely, the Report and Third Reading of the Weights and Measures Bill.

Mr. ATTLEE: I suppose that it is not intended to ask the House to sit late, or to take the Pensions (Governors of Dominions, etc.) Bill at a late hour? The Prime Minister will recollect that on previous occasions the question has been raised with regard to this Bill that we should take it in good time.

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope to manage it. I will not press the one point which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, if it will be inconvenient.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 202; Noes, 121.

Division No. 225.]
AYES.
[3.25 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Gulnness, T. L. E. B.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Guy, J. C. M.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'burgh, W.)
Hamilton, Sir G. C.


Albery, I. J.
Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Hannah, I. C.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Cranborne, Viscount
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Assheton, R.
Crossley, A. C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Atholl, Duchess of
Crowder, J. F. E.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Holmes, J. S.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Dawson, Sir P.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
De la Bère, R.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Hulbert, N. J.


Bernays, R. H.
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Hurd, Sir P. A.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.


Blair, Sir R.
Duggan, H. J.
James, Wing-commander A. W.


Blindell, Sir J.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Dunglass, Lord
Keeling, E. H.


Bossom, A. C.
Dunne, P. R. R.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Eckersley, P. T.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Browne, A C. (Belfast, W.)
Emery, J. F.
Latham, Sir P.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lees-Jones, J.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Fildes, Sir H.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Cary, R. A.
Findlay, Sir E.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Cautley, Sir H. S.
Fleming, E. L.
Levy, T.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Ganzonl, Sir J.
Lewis, O.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br. W.)
Gibson, C. G.
Liddall, W. S.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Lindsay, K. M.


Channon, H.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Lloyd, G. W.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Granville, E. L.
Lumley, Capt. L. R.


Christle, J. A.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Colman, N. C. D.
Grimston, R. V.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Macdonald. Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)




McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Somerset, T.


McKie, J. H.
Power, Sir J. C.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Radlord, E. A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Macquisten, F. A.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Maitland, A.
Ramsbotham, H.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton, (N'thw'h)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Rankin, R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Markham, S. F.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Rathbone, J. B. (Bodmin)
Sutcliffe, H.


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ropnar, Colonel L.
Touche, G. C.


Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'nderry)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Morgan, R. H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Turton, R. H.


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Wallace, Captain Euan


Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Salmon, Sir I.
Warrender, Sir V.


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Salt, E. W.
Williams, H. G (Croydon, S.)


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Palmer, G. E. H.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Patrick, C. M.
Sandys, E. D.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Peake, O.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Perkins, W. R. D.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)



Petherick, M.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Sir George Penny and Lieut.


Pilkington, R.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.


Plugge, L. F.
Smithers, Sir W.





NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Maxton, J.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Montague, F.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Groves, T. E.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, I. H. (Whitechapel)
Paling, W.


Ammon, C. G.
Hardle, G. D.
Parker, J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Parkinson, J. A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Potts, J.


Batey, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Bellenger, F.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Riley, B.


Benson, G.
Holland, A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bevan, A.
Hopkin, D.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bromfield, W.
Jagger, J.
Rowson, G.


Brooke, W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Salter, Dr. A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Burke, W. A.
John, W.
Shinwell, E.


Charleton, H. C.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Silverman, S. S.


Chater, D.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Simpson, F. B.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Compton, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cove, W. G.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Daggar, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Kirby, B. V.
Stephen, C.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Day, H.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dobble, W.
Lathan, G.
Thorne, W.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Leach, W.
Thurtle, E.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lee, F.
Tinker, J. J.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Leonard, W.
Viant, S. P.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Leslie, J. R.
Walker, J.


Foot, D. M.
Logan, D. G.
Watkins, F. C.


Gallacher, W.
Lunn, W.
Watson, W. McL.


Gardner, B. W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Westwood, J.


Garro Jones, G. M.
McEntee, V. La T.
White, H. Graham


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
McGhee, H. G.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gibbins, J.
MacLaren, A.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Mander, G. le M.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Marklew, E.



Grenfell, D. R.
Marshall, F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (HOUSING SITE) BILL.

Order [25th May] that the Bill be read

a Second time upon Thursday, 11th June, read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 9th June.]

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 8.—(Exemption from, certain duties of goods imported for purposes connected With science, art or sport.)

3.34 p.m.

Mr. MacLAREN: I beg to move, in page 7, line 35, to leave out from "they," to "make," in line 36, and to insert "shall."
'Under this Clause the Import Duties Advisory Committee are given discretionary powers as to the admission into this country of goods intended to be used in scientific research or for the purpose of advancing any branch of learning or art. The Amendment is quite consistent with the idea of the Clause, because in paragraph (b) the words are
goods are not intended to be sold.
I cannot understand how any discretionary question can arise. Let me give the Chancellor of the Exchequer an experience of my own with regard to the difficulty which some people have in bringing into this country articles which may be deemed to be necessary for the advancement of learning or art. The Import Duties Advisory Committee must be a wonderful body. They have to make decisions on all sorts of circumstances relating to industry, and here they are to decide on matters appertaining to the advancement of learning or art. There is a school at Rome, subsidised by His Majesty's Government—the British School of Art at Rome. There was a very brilliant student in London who won his scholarships and went to Rome, where he was an outstanding figure in the school. One of the most remarkable pieces of sculpture that I have seen was produced by this student, and he was anxious that the work which he had accomplished at the school in Rome should come to London. He approached the authorities here, but when it came to this country it was immediately put in bond. He wished this specimen of his work to arrive at the Royal Academy, but the authorities had great trouble in getting the figure taken to the exhibition, and

immediately the exhibition was over it was put again in bond. He could neither take it home nor do anything with it, and this dear lady lay in the cellars of the Royal Academy under bond. He wrote to the proper authority to ask what could be done to release Venus, and was told that he had either to pay the tariff on this lady or re-export her to Italy, which would mean that the moment she was put on board ship and got to Italy, she would have to pay another tariff. She was therefore at sea. She could neither go to Italy nor come back home.
After much trouble and using all the influence we possessed we discovered that it was necessary to exclude the importation of sculptured works from abroad because there was a tariff against tombstones, and the difficulty was to know whether a genuine work of art was a tombstone or not. The lady was anything but a tombstone. It was one of the most beautiful things I have seen coming from British hands, but here she was in bondage at home, and her only hope of escape was to get to sea. Finally, we won a great concession and at last she arrived in this country and is living in London at the moment. I give this case to show how farcical the whole thing is. It is one of the most comical stories I know, and shows to what a farce this kind of procedure can reduce any country.
It is very necessary for the Government to take cognisance of the fact that we have schools abroad in which we are encouraging the study of art and that there should be no impediments standing between this country and the results of the work and research of those who go to those schools. If it is a matter of wishing to put up a tariff against foreign art, I can assure you that Mr. Epstein would have a heavy tariff against him so far as I am concerned, because what he is doing has nothing to do with the life of this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense!"] That might be a very good description of his works of art. It really becomes ridiculous when tariffs operate in such a way as to impede the free flow of anything that is for the advancement of learning in any shape or form. I should have thought that the Amendment we are moving would have been commendable to the Government, and that there would have been no question about the matter. These articles


are not coming in to compete against the production of anybody else. They are articles for the advancement of the intelligence of the community, and there should be no discretionary power left to any advisory committee. After what I have said, I hope the Government will consider making it a direct mandate from the House that what seems to be useful for the advancement of art and learning shall come freely into the country.

3.42 p.m.

Mr. LESLIE: I support the Amendment. As the Government in the Bill admit the case for these goods being duty free, why should they not accept our Amendment and use the word "shall" instead of "may"? The word "may" is far too indefinite, too permissive, and always leaves loopholes for escaping from any obligation. Surely the Committee ought to agree that these goods, which are not for sale, should be allowed to enter the country duty free? Every Government ought to encourage scientific research, because it is most important to us as a nation. Learning and art ought to be encouraged. Education ought not to be viewed as a luxury to be taxed, but as a necessity which should be made as free as possible. Sport is also mentioned in the Clause; we ought to encourage manly sport, particularly health-giving sport. If we believe that such things are beneficial to us as a nation, then let there be no obstacle placed in the way of their free entry into this country.

3.44 p.m.

Mr. SILVERMAN: I venture to hope that the Minister may be able to accept the Amendment. If one looks at the wording of the Clause as it stands, and compares it with the wording of the Clause as we wish to amend it, I think it will be clear that there is no difference in principle. As it stands, the Clause provides:
(1) If the Import Duties Advisory Committee are satisfied, on the application of the importer of any goods, that—

(a) the goods are intended to be used in scientific research, or for a purpose connected with the advancement of any branch of learning or art or with the promotion of any sport; and
(b) the goods are rot intended to be sold, or to be used for any purpose which is substantially a commercial purpose;"

the principle of the Clause being


"(i) that the goods should be allowed to be imported without payment of any duty to which this section applies; or
(ii) that, if any such duty has been paid in respect of the goods, it should be repaid on the exportation of the goods, or should be repaid whether the goods are exported or not;"

Looking at the Clause, it is difficult to see why the extra safeguard is necessary. In the first place the importer of the goods has to satisfy the Import Duties Advisory Committee that the conditions are complied with. The Import Duties Advisory Committee are then made judges, as it were, in their own case. If the Clause be passed without amendment, there will be the very curious result that after the importer of the goods has satisfied the Import Duties Advisory Committee that the goods come within the conditions stipulated in the Clause, the Committee will not be obliged to do anything. First they are made judges in their own case, and then they are allowed to decide for themselves whether the conditions are satisfied or not; but when the importer of the goods has proved his case up to the hilt, he has no right whatever under the Clause, except that, after the Committee have satisfied themselves that the conditions apply,
they may, if in view of all the circumstances of the case they deem it expedient so to do, make a recommendation to the Treasury.…
There is not anywhere in the Clause or in the Bill so far as I have been able to discover anything which defines what are the circumstances which ought to lead the Committee to "deem it expedient so to do." What the Amendment suggests is not that the decision should be taken out of the hands of the Import Duties Advisory Committee—for we are content that the decision shall be left to them—but that when the decision is left to them and they are satisfied, the principle adumbrated in the Clause shall be applied without any further saving Clause. There seems very little reason why the Amendment should not be accepted. I think that all the purposes which the Minister had in mind in drafting the Clause would be just as well served with the Amendment as without it, and with the Amendment people would at any rate have some idea as to what it is they have to prove in order to claim the privilege in the end.
Before I sit down I would like to tell the Committee of one instance within my own knowledge. I think hon. Members were interested in the instance given by the Mover of the Amendment about Venus, who found it so difficult to rise from the sea, and perhaps they will be equally interested in the instance which came to my knowledge, and about which I ventured to write to the Financial Secretary. It is the case of a refugee from Germany, a, man with a medical qualification in Germany who was prevented under the existing régime from pursuing his professional activities there, and who sought some kind of refuge, temporary if not permanent, in this country. He was allowed to come in with a temporary visa which, unless it be extended, will expire next week. When he entered the country six months ago he brought with him certain instruments. I need not specify precisely what they were, and there may indeed be some slight shadow of doubt as to whether or not they come within the Clause, but I think that the decision ought in the end to be that they do come within the Clause.
When he came, he was quite properly challenged by the Customs authorities about the instruments and he asked, "Do I or do I not have to pay duty on them?" The Customs authorities said, "We are not quite sure, and would like to consider the point." He said, "What can I do in order to have the use of them in the meantime?" He was told, "You may take them in, provided you deposit what the revenue authorities deem sufficient to cover the eventual duty, if duty is to be levied." He agreed to do so, and £150 was fixed as the amount of the deposit. He deposited that sum six months ago. I have made inquiries since and I am led to believe that the maximum duty which would, in any event, be payable on the instruments is £100, so that the amount of the deposit was amply sufficient to cover any charge which might eventually be made. The Committee may find it 'difficult to believe, but I assure them that the authorities have not yet made up their mind now, within a week of the expiry of the visa, whether duty is leviable or not on these articles, and, if leviable, to what amount. Refugees from Germany do not usually come here blessed with a superabundance of wealth, and probably a sum which is 50 per cent.

more than any duty which could properly be chargeable—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Even if this Amendment were carried, I fail to see how it would meet the situation described by the hon. Member.

Mr. SILVERMAN: I suggest, with respect, that the whole difficulty arises owing to the fact that the Clause as it stands is discretionary, whereas the Clause as we propose to amend it would not be discretionary, and people would then have certain rights in this matter. Under the Clause, as amended, if a man, in those circumstances, satisfied the Import Duties Advisory Committee that his goods came within the description set out in the Clause he would be entitled to something, whereas, under the Clause as drafted, he is not entitled to anything. Even if he satisfies the Import. Duties Advisory Committee up to the hilt, then, over and above that, the Committee in view of all the circumstances of the case has to "deem it expedient" to exercise a discretion in his favour.

Mr. MABANE: Will the hon. Member say what the instruments are? That seems to be relevant to his point.

Mr. SILVERMAN: I thought I had described what they are. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I will come back to that point in a moment.

Mr. MABANE: On a, point of Order. It is relevant to the discussion to know what the instruments are. If they are not such as would conic within the provisions of this Clause, surely a discussion on them is out of order?

Mr. SILVERMAN: I said that the whole point about the delay was that the Customs authorities themselves held that the instruments might come within the Clause.

Mr. MABANE: Not this Clause.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Well, the corresponding section in last year's Finance Act. The whole point is that in this Clause, which we are seeking to amend and which is a repetition of the corresponding section of last year's Act, the whole thing is discretionary. If the importer has satisfied the Import Duties Advisory Committee as to the facts and as to the articles being within the section, then he has no right at all unless the committee decide that it is expedient


to exercise a discretion in his favour. We want to abolish that discretion. We do not want to take away the power of judgment from the Import Duties Advisory Committee. It is a very proper committee in the circumstances, to exercise it, but we say that in exercising it, they ought to test the evidence and ought not to do anything unless they are completely satisfied. Once they have been completely satisfied let us not add on some vague general discretion about the meaning of which there can never be any certainty.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. BELLENGER: In support of the Amendment I would like to give another illustration. It appears from a report which appeared in the "Times" a couple of days ago that certain people in this country who are interested in storks, wished to get some birds or birds' eggs from Germany. It may be that the illustration already given by my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) will not have any effect on the Chancellor, but if the right hon. Gentleman is impervious to the charms of Venus, he will perhaps listen with sympathy to the story about storks which appeared in the "Times." Whatever the motive may have been for the imposition of the duty, these scientific gentlemen were unable to obtain the storks or the storks' eggs without paying a duty of 50s. per stork, or 1s. per egg. They had to pay that at the Customs office at Croydon before either the storks or the eggs could be released. We do not wish to unbalance the Budget or to put, extra taxation on something else, but we do wish to try to cut the red tape which at present prevents people concerned in scientific development in this country from importing necessary articles or materials without duty. I take it that the whole purpose of the Clause is to allow scientific instruments or commodities to be brought into this country without heavy duties. The importation of the storks may, for all I know, have some scientific effect in the raising of the birth rate which I understand is falling, and I hope that my illustration may produce some good results in a favourable reply either from the Chancellor or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. ALBERY: I would like the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial

Secretary to give some further information concerning the words "promotion of any sport."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that point could better be raised on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. ALBERY: If I am ruled out of order I shall, of course, attempt to raise the matter on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but the point I wish to bring out may have an effect on this Debate. Perhaps I may be allowed to proceed, and if I am found to be out of order I can raise the matter later. The question with which I am concerned relates to the international sport of yachting. When a large yacht sails from English waters to take part in an international regatta it has no difficulty whatever—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I still fail to see what effect this Amendment would have on the question which the hon. Member seeks to raise.

Mr. ALBERY: In that case I shall endeavour to raise it later.

3.59 p.m.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I gather that the hon. Member who moved this Amendment founded his case upon, a particular instance which came under his notice when his attention was favourably enlisted on behalf of a lady of unusual charms. I do not know sufficient of the circumstances of the case to be able to comment upon it, but I am glad to hear that the story had a happy ending. One of the maxims upon which I was brought up was that it is unsafe to generalise upon less than two instances, and I think that is the difficulty into which the hon. Member has fallen. As a matter of fact his Amendment, if carried, would go a great deal further than I think he intends. The effect of the Amendment would be that an importer having established to the satisfaction of the Import Duties Advisory Committee that he had fulfilled the two conditions set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) would at once be able to demand the right of importation of these articles free of duty. That would be inconsistent with the provisions of the original Import Duties Act, and the duties which were laid upon the Import Duties Advisory Committee in


considering any application that might be made to them. They are not concerned solely with the two conditions which are laid down: here. The Import Duties Committee have to consider the general interests of British industry and the other circumstances that they think relevant. It is quite possible, if the Amendment were carried, that many articles which would fulfil these two conditions could be imported without paying any duty, although they could be equally well made at home. That would be contrary to the spirit of the Act.
Arising out of the interrupted speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery), on the question of the promotion of sport, it is quite conceivable that the promoters of some sporting event might import the whole of the prizes and trophies they required, to the detriment of British manufacturers. Surely that is a matter which ought to come within the consideration of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. Although it is impossible to operate an extensive tariff like ours without occasionally having cases which give rise to grievances, and sometimes perhaps to hardships, on the whole I think we may trust the Import Duties Advisory Committee to exercise their functions impartially and with due regard to the considerations that are laid down in this Clause, without leaving out of their consideration other matters which affect British industry as a whole. For these reasons I cannot accept the Amendment.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. MacLAREN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has rightly kept in his mind the two provisions mentioned in the Clause. At least he has said that the Import Duties Committee must be satisfied with regard to the two conditions. But respectfully I would draw his attention to Sub-section (1, b), which contains the words "not intended to be sold." There is no commercial advantage involved. The particular instance which I gave is only one of many. I could give the right hon. Gentleman quite a, number of cases similar to it. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider the words "not intended to be sold." If these articles were to enter the market the case would be different.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is quite irrelevant to the point. It is true that the goods are not to be sold in the particular instance given, but they had to be bought, and that is where the point comes in. The question is, from whom are they to be bought? I do not see why they should be bought from a foreign manufacturer when a British manufacturer can produce the same article.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: In this very special market it surely should be possible for people to buy scientific instruments where they wish. It is not desirable that we should hand over a monopoly for the making of scientific instruments to anyone in this country. Why start nationalising the sources of scientific investigation? To do that is surely to go back to the dark ages. I should have thought it desirable that people should be allowed to buy instruments in any part of the world. It is a very good thing that the makers of instruments here should have to compete with manufacturers in other parts of the world, in order that our own scientific progress might be kept abreast of the rest of the world. This concession would not be extensively abused, as there is the protection of Sub-section (1, b), which provides that the articles cannot be sold and cannot be used for any purpose which is substantially a commercial purpose. That provision limits their use very considerably. The articles can be used only in colleges or technical schools. In regard to prizes for sports, I should have thought that here was an instance where the Chancellor of the Exchequer might easily have responded to the application of those who support the Amendment.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. BENSON: The right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that the Amendment would have a serious effect on British industry, whereas in reality it is a very small matter. So far as the instance that he gave, on the question of sport, is concerned, we on this side are not worrying very much about the inclusion or exclusion of sport from the Clause. We are far more concerned with the scientific problem. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that there was no reason why any one in this country should import from abroad an article which could be made here. Normally a


person is not likely to do that. The importer who is importing for commercial purposes has his machinery for importing from abroad, but any normal individual, if he wants to buy a certain article, will buy it in the handiest place. The scientific man will have his British lists and will write to London for the lists of the firms making the particular things he requires, and he will get the articles from London, other things being equal, because that will be so much simpler; but the occasion arises when he feels that the particular article supplied in this country may not be just what he wants. In that case, if he feels that in the interests of the particular scientific experiment he is making, he must have the foreign article, he has to pay a duty upon it.
Let me give an example of what I mean. Take the case of certain drugs, particularly the organic drugs. The products of two firms may, so far as can be ascertained, be identical in quality, yet it may be known that they have quite different physical and theoretical effects. If an experimenter in this country decided that he wanted to experiment with a German drug, or if he felt that the German drug gave a better result, he would go to the Advisory Committee and ask for permission to import, explaining that the drug was for purely scientific investigation, and then under the second part of their instructions they would have to decide whether the import was expedient. A point that would arise would be exactly the point mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—is this drug made in England? The British drug manufacturer would say "Yes, of course it is made in England," for he would not admit that his drug was inferior to any other. The only person capable of judging a point like that is the importer himself.
It is ridiculous to suggest that the Import Duties Advisory Committee are capable of coming to a, decision on matters of scientific experiment with the accuracy and precision that an experimenter can exercise. It is for these reasons that we want to make it imperative that once the importer has established the fact that he proposes to use the imported article for the various purposes described in this Clause, that article shall come in free of duty automatically. In his reference to sports

prizes the Chancellor did not deal with the gravamen of our Amendment. He certainly did not satisfy us when he said that the same articles could be made in this country. The whole point of having to buy abroad is the fact that in certain circumstances, and possibly in important circumstances, the particular article cannot be bought in this country, that it is not made in this country, and that if it is to be used at all it must be imported.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I was amazed to hear the Chancellor's reply to the appeal that has been made to him. I have never heard him reply to worse effect. I am sure that his supporters were astonished at the weak case that he made, particularly as it came from such an authority on these questions. The case that was made for the Amendment was that when our students go abroad and have produced there works of art, pictures or sculpture, and they bring home that work, it should not be taxed. To tax it we think is a scandal. The right hon. Gentleman made no attempt to reply to that point. He tried to side-track the essential issue. We seek to defend our own young men and women who are considered the better for having gone abroad in order to get experience and to come in contact with those who are supposed to possess something greater than our local talent here. After all that expense has been incurred we put a tariff on their works. They are not foreign, works at all, but the works of Britishers.
The right hon. Gentleman side-tracked the issue by saying that a football team or an athletic club might be induced to buy pups or prizes of one kind or another in Germany or elsewhere abroad, instead of in Birmingham. It is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman did not mention Birmingham, but I knew quite well what was in his mind. In all my years' experience in this House I have never seen such a scientific side-tracking of a sound case made from the Labour benches. Why should clubs do anything of the kind? I would like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to understand that the last people in this country who would think of trading with foreigners are the sportsmen of this country, and it ill-becomes the right hon. Gentleman to try to get round in this way a difficult point that he was not able to answer. I have never seen him


flounder so much as he did on this question. It is not a big point, but a small point, a slight concession that would be beneficial not only to the working class but to the entire British people. He knew very well that it would be difficult to answer, and so he side-tracked the question. Before we divide on the matter I want to ask him this question: Will he allow these works of art that are executed by our own kith and kin, who go to Rome and to Athens and bring their works back here, to come into this country without any tariff or anything else? I want his reply to that direct question.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It has nothing to do with the Amendment.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman must not keep his seat and answer like that. Let him get up like an ordinary Member of the House of Commons and give me a reply.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. R. ACLAND: I want briefly to support the Amendment. We have heard from the right hon. Gentleman about the dangers to the Revenue and the tariff structure if importers were given a piece of machinery by which, on proving certain facts, they would have a right to a reduction of the tariff, and I think that that argument would be a strong one if the individuals who were going to take advantage of this Clause were individuals who could be described as professional importers of foreign produce, but the initiative under this Clause must be taken by an ordinary private individual, a man, in 99 cases out of 100, who has had no previous connection with trade, or the Board of Trade, or the Import Duties Advisory Committee—in this case an ordinary man in the street. The initiative must in fact, because of Sub-section (2, b), be taken by the ultimate user or consumer of the goods. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out the need of safeguarding the whole tariff structure, but surely you have a sufficient safeguard in this, that the average man in the street is not likely to go to all the fuss and bother of an application to the Import Duties Advisory Committee unless it is a case in which he feels that he desperately needs goods from abroad for scientific research or for purposes connected, with

learning or art, and that that fuss and bother are worth while to him.
The example of purchasing prizes for a sports gala or something of that sort is not worth considering, if you take it out of the House of Commons into a meeting of a gala committee. Are they really going to make this application, which has to be made before the goods are delivered to them for a set of cups and trophies, which they will have to base upon a circular or catalogue sent to them from some Berlin house? Never in this world will such an application come forward. Applications will only come from men who are in desperate need of the goods set out in Sub-section (1, a), and in those cases I feel that there can be no risk to the tariff structure by granting this concession, that men of that kind, subject to such a need, should make out their case and should be given the concession, not as a matter of discretion by the Treasury, but as a matter of right. I therefore support the Amendment.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. MacLAREN: I am very keen about this matter. I know it is difficult for the Government, having once made up their mind at the beginning of the discussion, to give way now, but I would put this point to them: I see the Minister of Education sitting on the Treasury Bench, and I know I have his sympathy here. [Laughter.] It is not a laughing matter, and if the hon. Member who laughs were a poor, wretched student, he would not laugh. May I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider the principle embodied in this point?

Sir JOHN WITHERS: Exactly what articles would these students propose to bring in? That is what is bothering me. Would it be notebooks and books of that sort?

Mr. MacLAREN: It is a question of students going abroad to the British School in Rome, for example, producing their works there, and then, when they bring them back here, being barred.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) has appealed to me, let me assure him that I regard this matter quite seriously, but I cannot help thinking there is a certain


amount of confusion in the minds of hon. Members opposite on it. This is not a Clause to prohibit the importation of articles from abroad. It is a Clause to enable articles which are imported into this country for certain scientific or research purposes, and which are not to be sold, to be imported free of duty. It is a Clause, therefore, to permit the entry, free of duty, of just such articles as those to which the hon. Member refers, but if you ask that students or artists who produce works abroad should be allowed to bring them in here free of duty, and sell them in this country—

Mr. MacLAREN: No.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Well, here I am referring to the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), and I would point out that the carrying of the Amendment would not effect that at all. The object of the Clause is to admit bona fide cases such as the one he gave to the Committee, and I have no reason to suppose that the Import Duties Advisory Committee will put any obstacle in the way of such importation as he has suggested. But to give that Committee no discretion to say that the duty shall not be remitted in cases where conditions are obviously quite different, would be going much too far.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. SILVERMAN: When you give the Advisory Committee the power of deciding for themselves whether certain conditions are satisfied, why is it

necessary, after they have so decided, to add the phrase, which must always be open to dispute:
in view of all the circumstances of the case they deem it expedient so to do"?
It is an absolutely unlimited, unfettered discretion, under which this permissive Clause could become a purely prohibitive Clause. Why is it necessary to leave them such absolute discretion?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no question of prohibition in any case. The only question is whether or not duty shall be paid on an article.

Mr. SILVERMAN: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is meeting my point. If you give the Import Duties Advisory Committee first the right to satisfy themselves that certain conditions have been complied with, and then you add that after they are satisfied they need only grant permission if they deem it expedient so to do, and you do not define the circumstances in any way, that, I contend, could be made to operate as a, prohibition.

Mr. EMMOTT: Surely the discretion of the Import Duties Advisory Committee is unlimited so as to enable the Committee to take into account all those considerations to which hon. Members have referred.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 217;Noes, 135.

Division No. 226.]
AYES.
[4.27 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Davison, Sir W. H.


Adams. S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Bullock, Capt. M.
De Chair, S. S.


Albery, J. J.
Burghley, Lord
De la Bere, R.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Burton, Col. H. W.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Cary, R. A.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Cautley, Sir H. S.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)


Assheton, R.
Cazalet, Capt V. A. (Chlppenham)
Dugdale, Major T. L.


Atholl, Duchess of
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br. W.)
Duggan, H. J.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Duncan, J. A. L.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Channon, H.
Dunglass, Lord


Balneil, Lord
Chapman, A. (Ruthergien)
Dunne, P. R. R.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Eckersley, P. T.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Chorlton, A. E. L.
Emery, J. F.


Beaumont, Hon R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Christie, J. A.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N.
Colfox, Major W. P.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Bernays, R. H.
Colman, N. C. D.
Erskine Hill, A. G.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Fildes, Sir H.


Blair, Sir R.
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Findlay, Sir E.


Blindell, Sir J.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Fleming, E. L.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'burgh, W.)
Furness, S. N.


Bossom, A. C.
Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Ganzonl, Sir J.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Gibson, C. G.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G
Crookshank, Capt. R. F. C.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Crossley, A. C.
Gluckstein, L. H.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Crowder, J. F. E.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.




Goodman Col. A. W.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot U.)
Samuej, Sir A. M. (Farnham)


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Granville, E. L.
McKie, J. H.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Selley, H. R.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Macquisten, F. A.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Maitland, A.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Grimston, R. V.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Markham, S. F.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Guy, J. C. M.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Smithers, Sir W.


Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Somerset, T.


Hannah, I. C.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Harbord, A.
Morgan, R. H.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Spens, W. P.


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (Wm'l'd)


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Storey, S.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton. (N'thw'h)


Holmes, J. S.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hore-Bellsha, Rt. Hon. L.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Patrick, C. M.
Sutcliffe, H.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Peake, O.
Tate, Mavis C.


Hulbert, N. J.
Penny, Sir G.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Titchfield, Marquess of


James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Petherick, M.
Touche, G. C.


Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Keeling, E. H.
Plugge, L. F.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Turton, R. H.


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Radford, E. A.
Wakefield, W. W.


Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. G,
Ramsden, Sir E.
Wallace, Captain Euan


Latham, Sir P.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Ward, Lieut.-Col, Sir A. L. (Hull)


Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Rayner, Major R. H.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Williams, H. G. (Crcydon, S.)


Lees-Jones, J.
Reid, W. Allen (Derby)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Lewis, O.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Liddall, W. S.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)



Lloyd, G. W.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Loftus, P. C.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Major George Davies and Captain.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Salmon, Sir I.
Hope


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Salt, E. W.





NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Kirby, B. V.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Foot, D. M.
Kirkwood, D.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Gallacher, W.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.


Adamson, W. M.
Gardner, B. W.
Lathan, G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Garro Jones, G. M.
Lee, F.


Ammon, C. G.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Leonard, W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Gibbins, J
Leslie, J. R.


Banfield, J. W.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Logan, D. G.


Barnes, A. J.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Lunn, W.


Batey, J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Bellenger, F.
Grenfell, D. R.
McEntee, V. La T.


Benson, G.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
McGhee, H. G.


Bevan, A.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
MacLaren, A.


Broad, F. A.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Maclean, N.


Bromfield, W.
Groves, T. E.
MacNeill, Weir, L.


Brooke, W.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Mander, G. le M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Marklew, E.


Burke, W. A.
Hardie, G. D.
Marshall, F.


Cape, T.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Maxton, J.


Charleton, H. C.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Messer, F.


Chater, D.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Milner, Major J.


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Montague, F.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)


Compton, J.
Holland, A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Cove, W. G.
Hopkin, D.
Naylor, T. E.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Jagger, J.
Oliver, G. H.


Daggar, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Owen, Major G.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Paling, W.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Parker, J.


Day, H.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Parkinson J. A.


Dobble, W.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Potts, J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Kelly, W. T.
Pritt, D. N.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Quibell, D. J. K.







Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Watkins, F. C.


Riley, B.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Watson, W. McL.


Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Sorensen, R. W.
Westwood, J


Rowson, G.
Stephen, C.
White, H. Graham


Salter, Dr. A.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Whiteley, W.


Seely, Sir H. M.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Shinwell, E.
Thorne, W.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Short, A.
Thurtle, E.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Silverman, S. S.
Tinker, J. J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Simpson, F. B.
Viant, S. P.



Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Walkden, A. G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Walker, J.
Mr. John and Mr. Mathers.


Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.36 p.m.

Mr. ALBERY: I should like to ask a question as to the effect of this Clause on international regattas held in this country. Large sailing yachts coming to this country to take part in international races have no difficulty with Customs officials. Small craft, however, are put on board a steamer and shipped to this country, and in such cases there appears to be a considerable amount of hindrance. There have recently been complaints made by foreign sportsmen who want to bring small sailing craft over to this country to take part in international regattas. I am sure that the Chancellor and everyone would desire them to receive from this country for such sporting events as good facilities as they give to our yachting men when they go to foreign countries. I understand that that does not appear to be the case, and I want to know whether the effect of this Clause will be to facilitate that matter. I want to ask, for instance, whether a yachting club which happens to be conducting an international regatta in this country would place itself in the position of an importer and be responsible for the small sailing craft which come from foreign countries to take part in such a regatta? The boats in no case come over to be sold. They come merely for the sporting event and then return to their countries. It is easy to keep track of them, for they are all mainly registered boats, pedigree boats as it were, like pedigree horses or dogs, and they cannot take part in races without people knowing what they are and where they come from. Will this Clause help in any way to facilitate those boats coming to this country?

4.38 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I never like to give a definite assurance on a matter which I have not had an opportunity of

examining. My hon. Friend, I thinks, is in as good a position as I am to see what the effect of this Clause is, and to see that it must facilitate the operations he has in mind. If he will give me fuller particulars in writing, I shall be glad to look into the matter for him and to tell him whether there is any difficulty in advancing what he seeks under the operation of this law.

Mr ALBERY: If the matter is not covered by the Clause, will my right hon. Friend favourably consider an Amendment at a later stage?

CLAUSE 9.—(Exemption from duty of road construction vehicles.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.40 p.m.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: There is a small point to which I want to refer, of which I have given notice to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, as to the definition of "road construction machinery." I have been advised that there is some doubt whether road construction machinery includes the tower wagons which are used for the repair of overhead trolley wires for electric trams. There is also some doubt whether snow ploughs can be regarded as being used for the repair of roads, and the same applies to machines used in frosty weather for scattering sand or grit. All these machines obviously come within the class covered by the Clause, and I think that the definition is drawn in such a way that they may be included, because "road construction machinery" means:
a machine or contrivance suitable for use for the construction or repair of roads.
I am not certain whether the repair of overhead trolley wires can be deemed to be the repair of roads. If they repaired the tram rails, they would come within the definition. I am not sure either whether the scattering of grit or the ploughing of snow can be regarded as


repairing a road. All these classes, however, really ought to come within the concession contained in this Clause.

4.42 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): The question of grit scatterers was dealt with two years ago, and they pay no duty. We dealt with snow ploughs last year, and they also pay no duty. I am informed that the trolley wire-mending towers come under a different category, because they are not road construction vehicles. They are vehicles used by the owner of the tramway for repairing his own plant.
Perhaps while I am on my feet I may explain what this Clause does. It is a concession which, to a certain degree, is consequential on the provision in last year's Finance Bill dealing with the taxation of vehicles carrying what is called fixed machinery. This Clause exempts machines used for no other purpose than road work, because the Chancellor does not desire to make revenue out of such vehicles. In fact, the Ministry of Transport want to encourage the use of the most up-to-date of these vehicles on our roads. Further, vehicles which have solid tyres pay a tax of 33⅓ per cent. more than vehicles with pneumatic tyres, and with certain of these road construction vehicles great heat has to be used and they cannot have pneumatic tyres. We feel that the concession must be strictly confined to vehicles which are used solely for road work. If they are used for other purposes, such as building and other things of that kind, they must pay tax. Under Sub-section (2) provision is made that if they are used for other purposes—any anybody can see what a big loophole there would be if they were allowed to be so used—they are deemed to be vehicles without a licence, the penalty for which is a £20 fine or three times the duty under the 1920 Road Act. Subsection (3) deals with the exemption of trailers for the same kind of machines, and the Committee will like to know that the loss to the revenue will be negligible.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. BENSON: Under the category of road construction vehicles would come, unquestionably, those mechanical diggers which are used for trenching and excavating purposes. There are a number of

road contractors who go about from building estate to building estate working on contracts for the construction of the private roads on those estates, and the bigger of those contractors employ mechanical diggers. They are in competition with contractors who employ manual labour. I fail to see why the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is so sensitive about his revenue and about the logic of his financial system that he will not allow a scientific instrument to come into the country free of duty, is prepared to forgo the duty on a mechanical digger used purely for commercial purposes for the construction of private roads. I can understand the position of the Parliamentary Secretary in saying that vehicles used in the construction of public roads at the public expense should not be taxed, but these private contractors' machines are in an entirely different category, because they are used only, or primarily, for private roads.

4.47 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: I cannot associate myself with the doctrine which has just been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson). His argument that the Chancellor is not putting enough taxes on those who are making private roads is one the Committee should not support. The development of housing estates should be encouraged, and anybody who has devoted any time to the question of housing and town planning knows that one of the real difficulties in providing houses which can be let at reasonable rents is the high cost of road construction. In the days when I was a member of a housing committee that was a problem which was constantly before our minds—the high cost of estate development in contrast with the actual cost of building the houses. One step towards the cheapening of road construction in recent years has been the development of these mechanical diggers, mechanical grabs and other road-making machinery, and so far from providing less employment, in the long run their use means, of course, the employment of more labour. If by the use of machines we cheapen the cost of road construction, we stimulate the development of building estates.
I am sure that when my hon. Friend has had time to give more thought to this question he will see the fallacy of


his doctrine. According to his view, if we were to scrap all the machines now used in the construction of roads it would mean more employment. On the contrary, if we were to go back to the old system of hand labour in road construction the cost of making many new roads would become prohibitive, especially in hilly country. The time occupied in their construction would also be increased, which is an important factor to be taken into consideration. In the long run it certainly would not lead to the employment of more labour on road construction. The very last thing any Member of the House should do at this time is to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should put more taxation on any form of road vehicle, because he is only too glad to find new channels of revenue, and with very little pressure he would yield to the suggestion.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. BENSON: I really cannot allow the remarks of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) to pass unchallenged. The suggestion in the background of his speech was, apparently, that if we put a tax on the mechanical diggers used in the construction of roads on private estates we should almost put an end to house building. What is the position? The ordinary piece of road fronting a small semidetached house can be cut and sewered and finished off in a condition ready to be taken over by the local authority for about £30, and the bulk of that expenditure is on the concreting and the sewering. The saving by the use of a mechanical digger is very small, except perhaps in very hilly country. At the very most the difference in the cost would be only about 2d. a cubic yard; it might be more in hilly country, but certainly not more in average country. I am not suggesting that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should put the tax on these vehicles, but am only pointing out to his logical and tidy mind that here he has slipped up.

CLAUSE 10.—(Remission of duty in case of motor vehicles used on roads for subsidiary purposes only.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.53 p.m.

Mr. TURTON: There is one small point which I wish to put to the Parliamentary Secretary. We are grateful for the small but welcome concession which this Clause grants to agriculturists. Can he tell the Committee from what date the concession will operate? The Clause, as drafted, makes it dependent on the authority of the Minister of Transport. Another point I wish to bring forward is this: Under the Clause farm tractors and the like which go upon the roads only when passing from one part of a farm to another are to be exempted from licence duty, and I want to know whether there will be any obligation to insure against third-party risks.

4.54 p.m.

Captain HUDSON: This Clause will come into operation at once. As the hon. Member knows, it has been customary for some time for certain of these vehicles to have exemption, and the Clause will give statutory authority for what has been done.

Mr. TURTON: What about the third-party risk?

Captain HUDSON: What is actually happening is that this Clause is to give statutory authority for exempting from licence certain vehicles in certain conditions as laid down in the Clause. In effect, these exemptions have been given since 1921; and this Clause does no more than give statutory authority for what is being done. My information is that there will be actually no departure from what has been the custom, although there has been no actual statutory authority for doing it.

Mr. TURTON: The custom varies in different parts of the country. In the North Riding of Yorkshire we all pay licences on our farm tractors, even though they go on the road for only one mile a year.

Captain HUDSON: This Clause will make certain that everybody is treated the same.

CLAUSE 11.—(Provisions to facilitate prosecution of persons using vehicles without excise licences.)

4.56 p.m.

Mr. TURTON: I beg to move, in page 10, line 17, to leave out from "know," to "who," in line 18.
The object of this Clause is one with which all the Members of the Committee will, I think, be in agreement. It is to ensure that those who drive or use unlicensed motor vehicles shall be brought to justice as easily and as quickly as possible; but in doing that we ought to see that the canons of justice are observed and that the standards on which the criminal law of the country is based are kept intact. In some cases under the criminal law if a person does a certain act the onus is on him to prove that he is not doing it for a guilty purpose. For example, if I were to strike down another hon. Member and kill him, it would be for me to prove that what I had done was done for an innocent purpose. On the other hand, if a person omits to do something, then it has been the law since time immemorial that the prosecution must prove that that person had a guilty and not an innocent purpose in omitting to do that thing. This Clause goes far away from that principle, for it says that if the owner of a motor vehicle fails to tell the chief officer of police the identity of the driver he can be fined up to £20 unless he can satisfy the court that he did not know who the driver was, and, not only that, but
could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who was driving or using the vehicle.
I think there are special circumstances here in which the owner of the vehicle should be called upon to show that he did not know who was driving or using it, but to suggest that he has also to prove that he could not with reasonable diligence have found that out is to go against the whole canons of the English criminal law. May I give a concrete instance? Suppose the Minister of Transport has in his garage a motor vehicle for which he has not taken out a licence. We have suspended the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-night and the Minister, after a hard day at the House here, goes home and goes to bed, and we will suppose is awakened in the middle of the night to hear somebody driving that car out of his garage. Under this Clause he would have to get up and run out into the street in his pyjamas, or other suitable clothing, in order to try to ascertain the identity of the driver of the car. Any ordinary, reasonable person who had his car stolen in the middle of the night would turn

over and say, "Well, I pay my rates and taxes, and it is for the police to find out who is driving the vehicle." This Clause goes further than any other provision in the road traffic Clauses, because we ask every owner of a motor vehicle to turn himself into an amateur detective if anybody takes his car for joy-riding purposes. While I sympathise with the object of the Clause, I ask the Minister to cut out the offensive and offending words which the Amendment would delete.

5 p.m.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I want, in a word or two, to support my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) in his appeal to the Minister. We appreciate the purpose of the Clause, because it is clearly desirable that where somebody uses a vehicle without the appropriate excise licence the owner should be under an obligation to give such information as he may have to the police but paragraph (a) goes a good deal further than that. To judge of this Amendment we have to look at the first words of paragraph (a), which are:
the owner of the vehicle shall give such information as he may be required by or on behalf of a Chief Officer of Police to give as to the identity of the driver.
Those seem to me very wide words. The owner has not merely to know the identity of the driver, but he is required to go further and to give any information which, in the judgment of the police officer, may be necessary. If he fails to do that, and to satisfy a condition which is entirely within the discretion of the police officer, he is guilty of an offence, unless he can discharge the onus which is thrown upon him. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton has shown that in some cases that onus may be very heavy. I hope that the Minister will be able to meet the point that has been raised.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: This is not an Amendment which we officially support. The two hon. Members who have spoken have not, I think, quite appreciated the importance of this matter from the point of view of the public interest. This deals with the case where the owner of a vehicle is not driving it. It may be that the licence of the car has expired, which is a matter of concern to


the Treasury—although I gather that there will not be any more Road Fund. There is a serious aspect to this matter from the point of view of the public interest and of the individual citizen. Suppose the vehicle is time-expired, in respect of its third-party insurance, and that the person insured requires to proceed against the driver of the car and that a punishment ought to follow. The view which I always took, and which I assume is taken, is that the owner of a motor car has some responsibility in the use of the car. He has the duty to use it properly, to pay the taxes, to see to his third-party insurance, and so on. If the owner of the car allows somebody else to use it, there is a responsibility upon him to see that the car is used by a person who is entitled lawfully to drive. If anything goes wrong, there is also the clear duty upon him to give the police every assistance he can in having the matter put right.
If the owner allows other people to use the car, he ought to be able to tell the police who was using the car. If he says, what would be rather extraordinary: "I do not know who was using the car and I could not, with reasonable diligence, know who was using it," the onus is thrown upon him to show why he did not know and why, with reasonable diligence, he could not have known. The circumstances in which that might be the case would be where the car had been stolen, and that would be a perfectly good defence. In these days, the ownership and driving of a motor car is a fairly responsible operation, and to lend a car to somebody else is a still more responsible thing. I would not encourage any hon. Member to engage in that practice freely and light-heartedly. There is a responsibility upon the owner to know what is happening to the car and who is in charge of it, and to give proper information to the public authority if that information is required.

5.5 p.m.

Captain HUDSON: My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) suggested that the wording of the Clause contravened the existing provisions of the traffic laws, but if he will look at Section 113 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, he will find identical words

there. This provision has been in existence for some years, with regard to public service vehicles. It is felt that the onus must be upon the registered owner of the vehicle, and it is, I would say in passing, the duty of every good citizen to help the police.
I will give the Committee the detailed reason why this Clause was put in. The object was, first of all, to prevent loss of revenue, and, secondly, to prevent the use of unlicensed vehicles on the roads. At the moment, as most hon. Members know, people are allowed 14 days' grace during which, if their licence has run out, they can get another licence. We find sometimes that owners take that 14 days' grace and do not renew their licences at the end of that time. That is an offence, and in order to prevent any large number of cars going about the roads with time-expired licences, there are instituted quarterly checks which are done partly by the police and partly, owing to this being a special duty for a short period, by retired police officers. These men have no power to stop a vehicle, and I am sure that no hon. Member would suggest that it is right and proper for anybody except a constable in uniform to have such power. All they can do is to take the number of the vehicle which, they notice, by the colour of its licence, has a licence which is out-of-date.
All that, the Clause does is to give power to require owners to disclose the driver's identity. I do not think that that is a very serious thing to make them do. The wording is taken straight from the 1930 Act. We feel that we must place the onus on the registered owner of a vehicle, and we hope that there will be two results: first, preventing unlicensed vehicles going about and, by that means, protecting the revenue.

Mr. TURTON: Surely the Parliamentary Secretary has not dealt with the Amendment. We agree that the owner must disclose the identity of the driver, but my Amendment does not touch that or throw the onus anywhere else. The Clause goes further than that and says that the owner must be fined £20 if he has not exercised reasonable diligence in ascertaining who was using the vehicle; that is a monstrous injustice. It may be reasonable from the official point of view, but when administered in the courts it will become a very difficult matter for


benches of magistrates to decide what is reasonable diligence. I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) said that in the case of a stolen car the owner would not be subject to reasonable diligence in finding it, but upon that matter you would find a great deal of disagreement on many benches. Many benches will say that the owner has to take reasonable steps to find out who is driving a stolen car. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the matter.

Captain HUDSON: I would point out to my hon. Friend that all that the Clause does is to say that the owner of the car must give to the chief of police certain information, and that the only reason for not doing so is that he did not know who was driving the car and could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained the identity of the driver. If you go to court and say that your car has been stolen, you can probably never find out, with reasonable diligence, by whom that car has been stolen. These words have worked well in the 1930 Act, and they seem to me to make perfect common sense. I do not believe that a court would have any difficulty in putting them into force and of tightening up what has proved to be a serious disadvantage in the past.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I have listened to the discussion. We seem to be dwelling on the stolen car. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) said that he would expect the owner of a car which was being stolen to rush out and try to stop it. I believe that is what would happen. If I owned a car which was being stolen I would go after the thieves and try to stop them. I should then think that I had shown a reasonable diligence. If a man came before me as a magistrate and said: "I was asleep at the time when my car was stolen, and I was not aware of what was taking place," I should say that that was a reasonable view to put before me. If a car has been taken, the owner must notify the police that his car has been stolen and must give all the circumstances. That would be taking reasonable precautions. If anything happened afterwards and it was discovered that somebody had been

killed by the car, surely the owner would not be responsible for that. He would have reported the loss, and English justice would hold that he had done all that he could, and that he had used reasonable diligence and every precaution. No court of justice would hold him responsible for anything like that. I do not take any exception to the wording. I have too much faith in English justice to think that a man would be dealt with unfairly in a case like that.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 12.—(Income Tax for 1936–37.)

5.12 p.m.

Mr. MABANE: I beg to move, in page 10, line 32, to leave out "nine-pence," and to insert "sixpence."
This is not the first time that I have moved a reduction in the Income Tax, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows the reason why some of us put down Amendments to reduce the Income Tax. Some of us believe that there are few ways in which the industry and employment of the country can be so well assisted as by a reduction of direct taxation. I do not believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer dissents from that point of view. While that is the primary reason for doing all that we can to secure a reduction of direct taxation, there is a further point, which is a development of points which were made in the earlier Debates.
In reply to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) yesterday, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury dealt with the suggestion that had been put forward that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had provided himself with too much revenue, and that there was no need to impose additional taxation, as is imposed in this Clause and also, I think, in Clause 1. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester suggested that the Estimates of revenue were too low, but, in reply, the Financial Secretary produced a new and somewhat remarkable document. He assured the hon. Member for Colchester that there was no ground for supposing that this year there had been any deliberate under-budgeting, as the phrase goes, and he went on to


say that there had been very considerable speculative estimating about the Budget Estimates. He said that not only was there uncertainty in regard to Income Tax, but that there was bound to be uncertainty as to the expenditure side of the account.
I suggest to the Committee that that is a very new and disturbing doctrine. Does the Financial Secretary mean that the Budget has now become little more than a kind of a casual guess on the part of the Treasury, that the taxpayers are presented with Estimates that are not very accurate, and that the taxpayers are expected to pay their taxes on those inaccurate Estimates? What justification has he for saying that the Estimates presented to us on Budget day contain any high degree of uncertainty? I do not think that there should be any substantial uncertainty. Where is the uncertainty on the expenditure side of the Estimates? The Estimates are sifted in detail by the Estimates Committee of the House, and, after the expenditure has been incurred, the Public Accounts Committee examines it in detail, and, if there were any wide variation between the amount estimated and the amount actually expended, they would report such variation to the House and the House would, I am sure, require some explanation of it. If we go through the items on the expenditure side of the Financial Statement, I think we are bound to come to the conclusion that there is no justification for suggesting that there should be any uncertainty in the amount of the expenditure. The amount required for interest on and management of the National Debt is a fixed figure, and there is no reason to suppose that it would vary. The amounts required for the Supply Services are all considered carefully in detail, and there is no reason for any variation there.
On the revenue side there is little more justification for suggesting any large degree of uncertainty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer each year, when he presents his Budget statement, tells the House, from certain sources of information open to the Treasury, that the amount that will be yielded by the Income Tax is almost entirely certain for the year ahead, and Surtax is similarly determined from the same sources of information. Estate Duties,

perhaps, represent an amount that may be variable, and the amounts received from Customs and Excise may be variable. Some of us have suggested in the past that the variation in the amount received from Estate Duties could be made smaller if a new and better method of estimating Estate Duties were adopted. I suggest that, if we consider in detail the items on the revenue and expenditure sides of the Financial Statement, there is little justification for the remarkable statement of the Financial Secretary yesterday that from now onwards the House must suppose that the Budget statements submitted to it are liable to a very considerable measure of uncertainty, and that really the Treasury cannot guarantee them as being anything like accurate at all.
If the Financial Secretary meant that new factors might be introduced in the course of the year, and that the variation in expenditure might be clue to the Government having to undertake new obligations during the year, he did not say so. If, indeed, he were to make that suggestion, he would be committing himself to an even more startling doctrine, namely, that the taxpayer should be called upon to pay taxes for Supplementary Estimates which have not yet arisen, to meet liabilities which have not yet come into sight, and which, so far as anyone can see, may never come into sight. It is because some of us feel that in the last few years there has been a tendency for the Treasury to cover itself to such a considerable extent against emergencies which have not arisen, that we feel that we are entitled to protest against increases of taxation until we are told more definitely what the money is wanted for. I do not think that any of those who have put their names to this Amendment would desire to withhold the additional revenue which the Chancellor wants, if they could be convinced that it is really necessary, but we know that in each of the last four years, although the Chancellor has said that the amount which the Income Tax would yield was almost certain, he has been mistaken and the Income Tax yield has been considerably in excess of the estimates. We know that, although some of us have suggested at the beginning of the year that there was likely to be a considerable surplus at the end of the year, and have been told that we were guessing, never-


theless the facts have proved that we were right, and this has led some of us to the view that perhaps the Treasury is covering itself a little too much, and that what is now commonly referred to as conservative finance is little more than an attempt on the part of the Treasury to provide itself with more revenue than it need have.
Therefore, I suggest that the Committee is entitled to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary to tell the House in a little closer detail why it is suggested that this additional revenue is required. I think the Committee is entitled to ask on what basis the estimate of Income Tax is founded. Why should the Chancellor suggest that we are only going to receive £259,000,000 in the current year? The House can only demand this additional explanation by moving to reduce supplies, but I suggest that, as it is upon the Income Tax payers that the demand will fall if in the future additional demands are made, the Income Tax payers are entitled to ask for the fullest possible explanation of the reasons for these substantial variations between the estimates of revenue and expenditure in the last four years and the realised amounts, and also to be informed, on some fuller basis than has been forthcoming in the past, why they should believe that there is likely to be no variation in the future. We know that the whole foundation of our financial structure has altered since 1931. We have gone off the Gold Standard; we are managing our money; we have the Exchange Equalisation Account. It may be that these new conditions make it impossible for the Treasury to estimate so accurately as was possible in the past, but, if that is so, let us be told, and let us know that our financial arrangements in the future are not to be the same as they have been in the past. The House, before granting this additional revenue, is entitled to ask for some satisfaction on the points I have endeavoured to raise.

5.24 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: I seldom take part in Debates on the Budget, but, in view of the opinions I hold on other matters which are vitally affected by this Amendment, I feel that I must speak against the Amendment and in support of the Government. Hon. Members on both sides

of the Committee will admire the care with which the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) has studied this question. In these days, when almost everyone is stamped in the same mould, it is refreshing to find someone with individual qualities. The hon. Member has put his case with moderation, and in general I agree with a great deal of the principles that he enunciates, but those principles have to be considered in the light of the situation with which the Committee is faced. I am not sufficient of an expert to speak on the aspect of over-budgeting, but I imagine that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary will have a complete answer on that aspect of the question. On the general question I start with the premise, which is common to all of us in the House of Commons except hon. Members on the Labour benches, that an increase in the Income Tax is per se an evil if it can be avoided. We all agree with the hon. Member on that point, but the real question is, can it be avoided in this case; or rather, would the alternative be a greater evil than the increased tax?
In the first place, it is notoriously the fact that this sum is very largely required for what we think, and what the Government think, is a very necessary addition and accretion to our armaments. Let the Committee consider the different methods by which our House of Commons and our Government deal with this question as compared with foreign Governments. On the Continent we see in almost every case increasing armaments and an increasing burden of debt—a most evil and vicious system, which I suggest must lead to an inevitable end. The only way in which Governments can get out of that difficulty—I should be out of order if I pursued it at any length—is by some adventure which will cut the whole Gordian knot. If we are to have increased armaments in this country, it is of the utmost importance that both the direct and the indirect taxpayers should be made to realise that fact. It is a very unpalatable thing to say, and very few people outside the Government say it. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) smiles. Does he dissent from that statement?

Mr. BOOTHBY: I do not think we should impose additional taxation merely for the purpose of teaching the taxpayers an elementary lesson in mathematics.

Earl WINTERTON: I am not impressed by my hon. Friend's answer. I do not think he realises that it is the lack of that elementary lesson in mathematics that is causing unrest on the Continent of Europe to-day, in Germany, Italy and elsewhere. Personally, I should like to see the taxpayers of this country realise that lesson in elementary mathematics. But there are other questions to be considered. A few years ago some of us thought that in this country we were getting into a dangerous position owing to the high ratio which direct taxation bore to indirect taxation, and which was constantly increasing. To-day, happily, that ratio has been greatly altered, and it is no longer true to say, as it was seven or eight years ago, that we were in that dangerous position. The most unpopular argument of all, but I believe it is true, is that it is an undoubted fact that the Income Tax paying classes of this country, whether they are paying on incomes of £50,000 or on incomes of £500, are in a far better position so far as their standard of living is concerned than comparable classes in any country in Europe. Anyone who goes out on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday on the road in France, Germany, Italy, Belgium and this country will see that the difference is remarkable in the number of people owning small cars, portable radio sets and so on, mostly small Income Tax payers. I do not want to fall into a trap and be, accused of adopting a Socialist argument; I am merely stating a fact; and I deduce from it that, although an increase in direct taxation is to be avoided if it can be avoided, it is not true to say that the high direct taxation in this country has a prejudicial effect on the standard of living, at any rate of the class of people to whom I am referring. The truth is that the standard of living of all classes in this country is astonishingly high. We hardly ever say so, but it is undoubtedly the case. That brings me to my last argument. If the rentier class—to use what, I believe, is the jargon of the extreme Socialists; the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) will correct me if I am wrong—whose name is commonly hissed on public platforms—

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: Will the Noble Lord explain to the Committee

how it is possible to hiss the word "rentier"?

Earl WINTERTON: I agree that it was an ungrammatical observation; but the rentier class are referred to with every expression of hatred and contempt. At any rate, however, the Income Tax-paying class in this country in particular, in common with others of His Majesty's subjects, do get a return from the high taxation that is paid, in two respects—in internal security, and I hope very shortly in external security as well, because but for the social services I do not believe there would be the internal security that exists at present, and certainly but for the increase in armaments that is required there would not be external security. So far from quarrelling with the system, regrettable as it is that it should be necessary to raise direct taxation, or, for the matter of that, any other form of taxation, let us rather be thankful that we live in a country so fortunately situated as we.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I rather agree with the latter part of my Noble Friend's observations. I am not in principle opposed to a pretty high rate of direct taxation, but I do not think it is necessary to impose an additional 3d. on the Income Tax in order to teach the taxpayers that they cannot have armaments for nothing, if the increase is not necessary, and I am going to attempt to argue that it is not necessary. I do not think my Noble Friend's Continental illustration was a very happy one. He compared the difficulties in this country with those on the Continent. In my opinion, and I think in the opinion of a growing number of people, the troubles on the Continent are due to the fact that for the last year or two years the rentier class have insisted upon a rigid financial orthodoxy, involving the maintenance of the franc and violent deflation, which have driven France to the straits that it is in at present and which, if persisted in, will drive them over the brink to disaster.

Earl WINTERTON: I was not talking so much of the difficulties of France. I was saying that I cannot think of any Continental country where you can see such evidence of prosperity amongst the small direct taxpaying class as you see in this country.

Mr. BOOTHBY: In my judgment that happy state of affairs dates from the moment when this country departed from the Gold Standard, and a similar prosperity will revisit France when she does the same thing as we did. The only reason why I support this Amendment is that I cannot see the necessity for this little additional imposition. It sounds a, small sum, but it is very inconvenient, and it involves immense additional labour and calculation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will ask whether I would rather have 6d. My answer is, "Yes, if it is necessary." I would rather go up by 6d.every two years, if it has to be done, than 3d.every year. The amount of taxation raised is very considerable in the aggregate, and it is not good enough if it is merely to teach the people of the country mathematics. What we who support the Amendment say is, first of all, that we are really not in a position to estimate clearly what our expenditure on re-armament in the immediate future is going to be. I entirely agree with my Noble Friend that the bigger the expenditure the better. All we can be certain of that it is not going to be very big, and will probably be below the estimates that the Government have given, because it is very difficult to start a policy of re-armament on a big scale. Some of us, including my Noble Friend and myself, think that we started at least two years too late.
Further, there are some of us who hold that, having pursued for 10 years deliberately a policy of disarmament, and having inevitably allowed our armed forces, I should not say to disintegrate but to go to a very low level, if it is necessary to reverse that policy altogether, so far as fresh capital expenditure is concerned, that is to say in the construction of aerodromes and permanent works of all kinds, it would be better, both from the short and the long-term point of view, to put that part of the expenditure, at any rate, upon a capital basis, and to use the advantage we enjoy at present of cheap money to raise money for that side of the expenditure, for the re-conditioning and re-equipment, by way of loan, and simply pay for the recurring expenditure out of revenue. That matter has never really be properly thrashed out. I believe there is a considerable difference of opinion in all parties as to whether, first of all, we should finance any part

of our re-armament by way of loan, and, if so, how much and for what. To my mind—and I think there are many who agree with me—that part which involves capital re-equipment should be financed out of capital expenditure only should fall as an annual charge on the taxpayer. It is a discussion that is very relevant on this particular proposal, but this is not the time to thrash it out thoroughly. It will have to be thrashed out sooner or later.
Another reason why I am opposed to this increase in taxation is that, in so far as it has any general effect. it is slightly deflationary, and I do not think that is necessary or desirable. Deflation is deadly. We ought to have learnt that by this time from the experience of every country in the world. The death agonies of France at present are only another example of what deflation can do. We do not want deflation here, and there is certainly no reason for it. The figure of gold reserves in the Issue Department of the Bank of England to-day is £205,000,000, which is really worth £338,000,000 at the present price of gold. You have, over and above that, £100,000,000 of gold belonging to the Exchange Equalisation Fund. There is plenty of basis there for continued credit expansion. We have such revival of prosperity as we have achieved by means of a controlled inflation which was rendered possible by departure from the Gold Standard. In my opinion we ought to continue that policy of controlled inflation, especially as we have ample gold reserves to form a credit basis for that operation. If we do that, I see no reason why, with the benefits which will undoubtedly accrue from the rearmament policy, we should not get a steadily expanding revenue which will more than cover the additional costs of rearmament year by year.
There is another point in defence of the Amendment which carries the argument of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) a stage further. He said the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had recently stated that the profit and loss account of the nation was becoming more speculative, and, that in fact it was more difficult than it used to be to assess revenue and expenditure.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I am


sure my hon. Friend does not desire to proceed on a false basis.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I am quoting the hon. Member for Huddersfield.

Mr. MORRISON: If the original error was that of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) I am sure my hon. Friend does not wish to perpetuate it. What I said was that there are two sides to the national account. There is not only bound to be some uncertainty in regard to Income Tax, but there is bound to be some uncertainty as to the expenditure side of the account. It is difficult to say that there is more uncertainty than there was in the past.

Mr. MABANE: The Financial Secretary said there was bound to be in this matter a certain element of speculation. My point is that there is no justification for that remark.

Mr. MORRISON: I did not say there was any new element of speculation, but it is a fact that any forecast is a speculation. It is bound to be.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Now I should like to introduce my own opinion and say that in my judgment there is quite definitely completely a new element in regard to this. We have no right to ask for the details, and I do not think the Committee would wish to ask for them, but here comes the Chancellor of the Exchequer imposing additional taxation of £12,000,000 per annum on the direct taxpayer. It is the duty of the Committee, before it sanctions such additional taxation, to make some general inquiries about the condition of the Exchange Equalisation Fund, and in my judgment that is the new element of speculation which undoubtedly exists in regard to the revenue. The House of Commons has handed over to the care of the Chancellor of the Exchequer over £300,000,000 of the taxpayers' money, or the right to borrow that amount, to put it into the fund and run it pretty well as he thinks fit. We do not want to know the details, but the time has come, as the Chancellor asks for additional taxation, when we should have some general information about the state of the fund. What have been, roughly speaking, the jobbing profits on that fund during the last year? We know they have been very considerable, but we are not shown in miscellaneous receipts from time to time how much these profits

are. The Chancellor can surely put some of these profits, which we know are very considerable, into miscellaneous receipts for revenue purposes.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Entwistle): The hon. Member must not go into that point too much. It is not the subject matter of the Debate. He can use it as an illustration but he must not develop it.

Mr. BOOTHBY: This Committee has a duty to be very vigilant about taxation—it is its main duty—and when the Chancellor asks for additional taxation we have a right to make the most searching inquiry as to whether it is vitally necessary, and when there is a large fund about which we know very little except that it is alleged to have made a large profit—it is alleged to hold in Paris over £100,000,000, which belongs to the taxpayer—we are entitled to ask what the Chancellor's opinion is on that particular point, and whether he and the Financial Secretary are satisfied that this additional impost, which will be a great inconvenience to business, is vitally necessary, and, if so, why?

5.44 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I want to speak directly to the Amendment which, if the Chancellor accedes to it, would mean a reduction of £12,000,000 to the revenue. That is what the Committee has to direct itself to. The hon. Member who spoke last did not come in on the increase of the Tea Duty. I have never heard him raise his voice to ask for an explanation about indirect taxation.

Mr. BOOTHBY: If I had been Chancellor of the Exchequer, I would not have increased the duty.

Mr. TINKER: I wish the hon. Member had been Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, there was no protest made. What concerns me is that, when it is direct taxation, we get protests from the other side. They do not expect any redress this time. It is only to prepare the ground for next time. They say, "If we show the Chancellor what we feel on this matter, he will have regard to what we say when he is considering the next Budget." I urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he considers it necessary to ask for additional money for a particular policy, such as armaments, in


which he is backed up by Members of his party, to put the burden upon direct taxation—upon Income Tax, Super-tax and Death Duties. There is no reason at, all for all the talk about this sort of thing driving capital out of the country. In a. statement made in March last concerning the distribution of national capital, it was shown that. from 1911 to 1913 85 to 90 per cent, of the national capital was owned by 5 per cent. of the population over 25 years old, and that to-day 80 per cent. of that capital is owned by the same percentage of the population. In spite of the inroads made by direct taxation and Income Tax, the ownership of capital has not shifted very much. These, people are still safe and sound, and there is plenty of money to be got when it is required.
It has been said that no country in the world has a richer people or people who are better looked after than this country. I would advise hon. Members opposite, when talking about the need for armaments, to realise that if, for instance, we were beaten by a foreign Power, the moneyed people would be affected most of all. The poor people would then be on the same footing as the rich. Therefore, it is in their own interests that the rich should say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "If you want this money, put another 6d. on us and we will not grumble at all." I trust that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do that if he requires additional money. I hope that he will not listen to any arguments or blandishments put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite that, if he has a surplus, it should be given back to the Income Tax payers. If he has any surplus, he should give it back to the indirect taxpayers and not the Income Tax payers.
I have no doubt that if this Amendment could have come on earlier the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) would have spoken upon it in defence of the Income Tax payer. I have before me "The Income Tax Payer," and there are the names of several Members of Parliament in it, but they have not spoken in this 'Debate. The Chairman of the Income Tax Payers' Society, the hon. Member for South Kensington, says in this issue:

While admitting that Mr. Chamberlain's task was an extremely difficult one because of the undoubted necessity of the defences of this country being put without delay into a sound condition, one cannot but regret that some way could not have been found to meet the heavy cost involved by other than increased direct taxation.
He admits, on the one hand, that it is necessary to put the armaments of the country into a sounder condition, but suggests that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should find the money somewhere else. It is not fair to use such an argument. If it is admitted that we require certain defences, the people who have the money ought not to cavil about having to pay for those defences.

5.50 p.m.

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: I differ in one respect from the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) in that he appears to fear that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer might give way to the blandishments which have been put forward to-day. I have found my right hon. Friend very difficult to move, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman need be the least afraid' that we shall move my right hon. Friend unless he himself is completely convinced that his proposal is unnecessary. There is only one aspect of this matter—it has not been specially mentioned—which I want to bring out to-day. I entirely agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) regarding the dangers in this country and in other countries which have come about from any form of deflation. If I thought for a moment that there was any move to change the policy which the Government have followed in connection with cheap money and the provision of ample credit for industry for some years past, I should resist it tooth and nail. That would be the greatest danger that could come upon us. I do not share the fear of my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen in that respect, however. I therefore look upon this really as a question of whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is justified, merely for the purpose of bringing it home to every section of the community that a sacrifice of some kind is required in the peculiar circumstances of to-day, in putting forward this proposal for extra taxation. I cannot myself believe that it is really necessary.
I am bound to say, with the greatest respect for my right hon. Friend and those associated with him at the Treasury, that I cannot forget that, through no fault of his, there was an under-estimate of the returns last year from Income Tax and duties of something like £20,000,000—a very substantial sum. I also cannot forget that the budgeting for the expenditure on armaments this year is something like £50,000,000 more than last year's estimate, and £40,000,000 over last year's actual expenditure. I am a little doubtful whether, in view of the state into which our defences have fallen—we must put it quite plainly—it is even going to be possible economically to spend that amount of new money in this year. These are two reasons why I do not feel that this expenditure is really necessary. There is a third aspect of this expenditure which has not been considered, namely, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is estimating the service of the National Debt in the present year at £224,000,000. Unless he expects dearer money, which I hope and trust he does not, there is no reason to suppose that the actual expenditure will exceed the £211,500,000 of last year. He has, therefore, some £12,000,000 or more up his sleeve in case his expenditure is greater than he expects. From all these points of view, I cannot really believe that, when we come to this time next year, it will have been found that the extra threepence on Income Tax, the inconvenience of which has been emphasised more than once, was really necessary.
There is one last aspect of the matter I wish to put before the Committee. If it is not absolutely essential, is it really fair to do this sort of thing? Think of what the bulk of the people who will have to pay the money have sacrificed to the State in the last few years. We are apt to forget that from a. large body of people, mainly Income Tax payers, £81,000,000 has been taken by the lowering of interest on Government loans. That has been a definite sacrifice. That is not shown in the rates of Income Tax, but it is a contribution to the expenditure of the State none the less, and has been a very heavy burden upon a great many people who could ill afford to bear it. Some of these people, no doubt, are comprised in the 6,000 odd who have incomes of £10,000 a year, and some may

be comprised in the 82,000 people who pay Surtax, but a great many are people who pay small amounts of Income Tax, and a great many, naturally, are investors in War Loan and mainly dependent upon such investments for their total income, being retired people and others of that kind. Therefore it, is very hard, looking at the matter quite apart from any question of party politics, to justify a further demand upon these people of £12,000,000.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I have said, will have something like £12,000,000 up his sleeve, and there is a possibility that his returns will be greater than he expects, judging by last year. The only justification that he has for putting that burden, to some extent at any rate, upon people who have already sacrificed very nobly in the last few years in the interests of the State, is that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put before the Committee, that it is necessary that all should realise that sacrifice is required. I find it difficult to resist that plea because perhaps there is something in it; but at the same time it is putting an unnecessary burden at this time upon people who have very nobly supported the State. It might have been better for my right hon. Friend to have waited to see whether he really was going to be in a position to find the £12,000,000 elsewhere.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: I listened with very great interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) and to that of my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), and I think that they are both inclined to be profligate financiers.

Mr. BOOTHBY: We are true prophets too.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I have heard some previous predictions of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen, and I will come to them shortly. The Sinking Fund has been raided theoretically to the limit. There is a chance that Treasury Bills will continue to be sold at cheap rates round about 10s. or 11s. If there is a rise to a quite moderate rate of, say, £2, which will still represent cheap money in the ordinary sense, the whole of that margin will vanish.

Mr. MABANE: The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) is usually correct, but in this respect he is entirely wrong. It will not have anything like that effect.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Let us look at the position. At the present time there are £600,000,000 or £700,000,000 of Treasury bills in issue, which are sold every Friday on a system of discount. The discount accepted in recent weeks ranged round ten shillings and a few coppers. It could rise from this abnormally low level without anything very startling happening. You have only to look at the records of prices for the period since 1918, and you will find that it ranged nearly as high as £6 less than five years ago. If it rises to £2 that represents an increase of 30s. on some £700,000,000. A little 'arithmetic done with regard to that will show about £10,500,000, which would wipe out the margin now existing between £224,000,000 and the actual cost last year of public interest and management. [Interruption.] I am merely indicating that a rise in Treasury bills will wipe out all that margin. Therefore there is really no margin in the Sinking Fund.
We are, from one point of view, in the middle of a trade boom. We have over half a million more people in employment than has ever been previously placed on record, but we still have a great mass of unemployment. The people in work have never been more prosperous, and it is equally true that there are something like 1,750,000 out of employment. This boom will have, as all booms have, a reaction, and when that reaction comes we shall have stripped the Sinking Fund, or we shall have got our expenditure on a level so high that inevitably we shall be forced to make a new set of cuts or to impose new heavy taxation. I understand that the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) and the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) want to do something now which will increase that risk in the future.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: I prefaced my remarks by saying, "Provided this cheap money era goes on." I am fortified in that by the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in opening his Budget.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not primarily the author of cheap money. We have only to examine economic history to see that a precisely similar state of affairs prevailed about 1895–96. What happens? You have a trade collapse, financial stringency, high cost of money, then a fall in commodity prices, the cost of financing trade very much reduced because the cost of raw materials is reduced, and then a sudden glut of cheap money. That factor is possibly as large as, if not larger than, any factor for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was responsible. I agree with the hon. Member for Kidderminster that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has under-estimated the yield of his Income Tax. He always does. He knows what a profligate set of associates he has. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Certainly, profligate. Have there ever been increases in expenditure comparable to the increases of the last three or four years1 It is profligate expenditure, leading us on to a new disaster. Make no mistake about it. We shall have another piece of trouble ere long because of gross extravagance.
Here we have an Income Tax of 4s. 9d. in the pound. An Income Tax of 4s. 6d. was gross over-taxation of the people of the country. It is all very well for the noble Lord to say that we have bribed the people into being content. I am putting his words into a nasty phrase. How many people have we thrown out of work through our policy of high direct taxation? I have always been convinced that high direct taxation is one of the chief causes of unemployment. It is interesting to look at the records of those years in which reduced taxation has taken place since the end of the War. They have always been followed within 12 months by a marked reduction in unemployment. One cannot say that that is necessarily the cause of the reduced unemployment, but when it happens so frequently there is a substantial weight of economic evidence to prove that a reduction in direct taxation is more likely to stimulate employment than any other proposal that can be made.

Mr. TINKER: We have more in employment to-day and yet there has been no reduction in Income Tax.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am pointing out that we have 1,700,000 people unemployed. Complacent people who are in good jobs are inclined to forget that fact. It is a most tragic circumstance. We cannot be content with the present situation. It horrifies me that 1,700,000 people will wake up to-morrow morning without having the slightest idea what is their purpose in this workaday life. I am not content to go on supporting a policy of profligacy which continues that state of affairs. I have always preached the doctrine of economy in public expenditure. We have abandoned that policy. Let us be frank about it. All parties have abandoned the policy of economy. We all support Acts of Parliament which impose new charges for the future. The legislation of this Session has hypothecated a great deal of the income of the future and will make it much more difficult to effect necessary economies.
The hon. Member for East Aberdeen says, "Let us have a bit of inflation." I will admit that the hon. Member is consistent. Inflation is like getting drunk and deflation is like getting sober. Reflection is something like the hair of the dog that bit you. The hon. Member said that we need not put up the Income Tax because we can solve the matter by a bit of inflation. He painted a picture of France, which I think was unfortunate. I think it was an unfortunate phrase to use in this House. When a country's passing through the difficulties that France is passing through, we ought not to do or say anything to make matters worse. France has had some inflation. I seem to recollect that France and the countries of the Latin union had a coin which exchanged at 25 and a few centimes to the pound. They altered it and called it 125 francs to the pound. I should have thought that that would have satisfied the hon. Member. It was an increase of 5 to But he is not satisfied. He says that they must have another piece of inflation. My point is, that the 5 to 1 did not solve the problem. Therefore, I am not satisfied with that suggestion. I am not satisfied that our departure from the Gold Standard, which was not a voluntary effort, was altogether a good thing. The hon. Member would have predicted then that it would have been followed by an expansion of prices, but it was not.

Mr. BOOTHBY: No, because world prices fell.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Precisely, and by the fall of world prices we threw hundreds of thousands of people out of work all over the world, and prolonged the world crisis.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Surely the hon. Member does not suggest that our going off the Gold Standard was the cause of the fall of world prices?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Certainly. At any rate, it was one of the reasons for a much deeper depression than would otherwise have been the case. I do not hesitate to say that by departing from the Gold Standard we prolonged the world crisis for over two years by forcing down the prices of raw materials in every primary producing country in the world. The hon. Member has not on this occasion brought in King Charles' head—Montagu Norman. He has forgotten the Bank of England to-day. He wants to inflate by means of a loan—

Sir P. HARRIS: On a point of Order. Shall we be allowed, on this discussion with regard to the Income Tax, to discuss the whole problem of inflation and deflation?

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL. SAMUEL: The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) dealt specifically with these points, and I suggest that my hon. Friend should be allowed to answer him.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I had not the advantage of hearing the hon. Member for East Aberdeen but, judging from what I have heard of the Debate, I conclude that it had been argued that other methods should have been used to raise the revenue and so avoid further taxation, and amongst them inflation was mentioned. I think those who oppose the Government's proposals are entitled to explain why they dislike them.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member said that we did not need to increase the Income Tax because we could do what was necessary by other means. He developed the argument and gave illustrations from other countries. He suggested a defence loan, where the increase in our defences involves capital expenditure. Obviously, we cannot rule out that possibility, but I should very much doubt


whether we could ever raise one penny in connection with a defence loan for the Air Force, because the material of the Air Force has such a short life, and it always ought to be borne out of revenue, but when we have to build a number of capital ships for the Navy the case might be different.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Or aerodromes?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Or aerodromes, but the other thing is the bigger item. It would not be the first time that this country had done such a thing. Let hon. Members go back to the records of 1887 or 1888 and read the speeches in the debates on the Naval Defence Act. It was then decided to restore our naval strength very largely by means of loans. I remember as a young man reading the speeches of the Liberal Chancellors of the Exchequer, Harcourt, and Asquith, denouncing the financial iniquity of meeting out of loans expenditure which ought to be met out of current revenue. I remember rejoicing when in 1906, Mr. Asquith, in introducing his first Budget, explained that the Liberal Government were abandoning this iniquitous system, and everybody agreed that he was right. The Liberals claimed great credit for that and Conservatives did not deny them that credit. It is sometimes possible to learn from the experiences of the past. On that occasion the Liberals were right and the Conservatives appeared to be wrong. I do not see any reason why, when the Liberals taught us what was right, we should in these days do what is wrong. Only in the most extreme circumstances should we commit ourselves to the policy of a defence loan.
I would suggest that hon. Members should get the financial statement from the Vote Office and see what is the deadweight total of our National Debt. Let them go to the Library and get the financial statement from 1919 and see what has happened. There has been little or no diminution in the dead-weight debt. At any rate, it is trifling, £100,000,000 off some £7,000,000,000 of debt. The economic burden has gone up immensely. There has been no reduction in the National Debt in a real sense. It is an intolerable burden and we ought to make some persistent effort to reduce it. During the last three or four years the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been

right in saying: "I will not burden the people unduly. I will give them a chance to recover and suspend the Sinking Fund, except for the chance of there being a surplus or the chance that my debt service happens to be less than I estimate, and then £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 shall be applied to the reduction of the National Debt."

Mr. BOOTHBY: The hon. Member must realise that the National Debt is not entirely a burden. To a large extent it is a transfer from the pockets of the taxpayers into the pockets of the owners of British Government securities. It is not wholly a dead-weight burden.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I agree that to pay it off you collect taxation from the people out of their incomes and then use the money to pay off the National Debt. But do not let the hon. Member run away with the idea that the National Debt is not a burden. Of course, it is a burden. It is all very well to say that we will pass an Act of Parliament to give each one of us a pension of £2 a week, then increase our taxation in order to provide the money, and pretend that it is not a burden. You find out that it is a burden, because you get all sorts of re-distributions and reactions. The man who is trying to build himself up is overtaxed and can make no provision for the future. What is the position of great masses of middle-class men to-day? The day after Christmas they get a demand note for Income Tax. With very great difficulty up to 31st March they pay off the Income Tax. Perhaps they pay it off in driblets, because they cannot pay it at once. A few weeks later they get another demand note. I got one this morning. Again they are faced with the problem how they are to pay it. They come to their summer holidays and they cannot do themselves as well as they would like because of the ceaseless burden of Income Tax. Whole masses of middle-class people, who are not rentier people, are finding themselves in great difficulty to make provision for their families and their old age because of this burden of taxation. One day they will be very angry, and when they become very angry there will be violent changes in the constitution of this House. These people are tolerant, but in the long run they rule this country. They are oppressed and overburdened and would be grateful if' we took a little more care to limit our


expenditure and not to impose these burdens upon them.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: During the course of the discussion I have been accused of being an immovable person who once he has made up his mind is not going to change. I cannot remember an occasion for such a libel on one who is so yielding by nature as I am. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) was right when he said that there was one preliminary condition which had to be fulfilled before I could change my mind during the Debate and that was that I must be convinced that I am wrong. That is the stumbling block which has prevented me from accepting Amendments, and it is rather, I am afraid, the situation in regard to the present Amendment. I have listened to the annual Debate on this subject, and to my annual critics who have put up the same views and the same arguments. While they do not show any increase in numbers they retain with great tenacity their views, but I have not found from what they have said this afternoon any such convincing arguments as would urge me to think that I have made a mistake in proposing an increase in the Income Tax of 3d. in the £. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane), of course, put his Amendment down before the speech of the Financial Secretary to which he referred, and although his observations this afternoon seemed as though his case was founded on what he described as the remarkable and astonishing statement of the Financial Secretary, as a matter of fact he must have held his views before, because the speech of the Financial Secretary had not been made when he put his Amendment on the Order Paper.
Surely what the Financial Secretary said on the subject of the necessarily speculative element which must always enter into Budget estimates is self-evident. You have only to look at past Budgets. Have you ever found that the estimate of revenue or the estimate of expenditure came out exactly coincident with the figures which were returned to the House? There is always a difference, and there must always be a difference. It is quite easy to show where a difference may arise. Take, for example, the yield of Income Tax. I have on previous occasions explained that the re-

turns from Income Tax are made up by three different items. The major part is, of course, the yield of the assessment for the year, but there are two other items, first, the amount of the arrears which are brought forward from the year before, which were due to be paid and were not paid but carried over into the current year, and, secondly, the amounts which are due to be paid in the current year but which are not paid and which are carried forward to the following year. The long experience of Inland Revenue officials enables them to calculate with singular accuracy the amount of the revenue which will be derived from the assessment for the current year, but the amount of the other two items, the amount which is going to be collected from the past year and the amount which is going to slip through collection in the current year, must always be speculative, because they are governed by all sorts of factors which it is impossible to predict. As I have previously explained, the increase in the Income Tax collected during the past year over the estimate was due, if you like to call it so, to a miscalculation as to one or other of these two elements. So much for Income Tax.
Take Estate Duties. There the estimate must necessarily be a matter of guess-work, and although we can introduce a certain amount of stability into the estimate by taking the average over a long period, nevertheless, it is impossible to say with any attempt at accuracy what you are going to get from Estate Duties. Take the Customs Duties. We have had but a comparatively short experience of the duties and I have no doubt that as time goes on and the Board of Customs accumulate further experience they will be able to make a prediction as to the revenue to be expected for a particular year with greater accuracy than is possible to-day, but in the present circumstances we are bound to find that the estimate may not be very close, and that if conditions change during the year we shall have to make considerable alterations in the amount predicted when making our estimate.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield was very shocked to hear that there could be any possible doubt about the amount of expenditure in the current year. He thought it possible to predict with confidence and certainty the expenditure, and


could not understand why there should be any speculative estimate in the matter. May I remind him of one thing which bears a very important place in national expenditure, and that is the contribution of the Exchequer towards the relief of the unemployed? How is that to be estimated beforehand? You have to make a guess, an estimate, of the average number who will be unemployed during the year, but conditions may change materially during the 12 months and, in fact, we have frequently found that they do change. Therefore that at once brings in an element of uncertainty into that item of expenditure. Again, there is what must be called a new element to-day, and that is the progress which we are able to make in our Defence programme during the next 12 months.
Last year the Committee will remember Supplementary Estimates were presented amounting to £14,000,000 more than I had anticipated for Defence. The same might happen this year. I do not think it will. As a matter of fact the Government know perfectly well what they are going to do; they are going to do as much as they can and, therefore, we can estimate with a fair amount of confidence how much we shall spend upon the Defence programme. But there again it is possible that unexpected developments may take place which would to some extent vitiate the figures I have put before the House on the subject of our expenditure on Defence. I must correct one error of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). He suggested that I was concealing from the Committee in the item of miscellaneous revenue sums derived from the profits of the Exchange Equalisation Account.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I am sorry if I conveyed that suggestion. I wanted to say that it would have been possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring some of those profits into the revenue instead of imposing additional taxation.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I thank the hon. Member for his explanation, but it does not deal with the point. There are no profits on the Exchange Equalisation Account, and there cannot be until it is finally wound up. It may be that at any particular time the Exchange Equalisation Account may show a profit, but to

use that profit for the revenue of the country would be financial heterodoxy which I am sure the hon. Member would not desire me to adopt. The real gravamen of the charge against me, and the reason for the Amendment, which I recognise is merely a means of drawing a statement from me on general policy, is that really it was not necessary to impose any fresh taxation at all. I do not think there is any point in distinguishing between direct and indirect taxation in this case. But in considering whether I can convince the Committee that it is absolutely necessary or not, I find myself in some difficulty. It is bound to be to a large extent a matter of opinion. How are we to say whether taxation is necessary or not? It is true that I have said on previous occasions that I wish to avoid taxation when it is possible to do so.
There is a simple means by which you can decide. I could have written up the estimates of what I am proposing to raise by taxation by £15,000,000, and the Budget would at once be balanced on paper; it would be unnecessary to raise taxation. But if that is the sort of thing it is suggested I should have done, I feel that the Committee will support me in the view I have taken that, having made the best estimate I can of what is likely to be the revenue and expenditure for the current year, I should not be justified in raising the Estimates by £15,000,000 in order to avoid the necessity for any fresh taxation. I agreed with what the Financial Secretary said yesterday. I deny in toto the accusation that I have deliberately under-estimated the revenue for the purpose of having something in hand against contingencies. I have taken what I believe to be an optimistic view of revenue, and although there is always an element of doubt in these estimates, and although anybody can guess another figure which may turn out to be more nearly right than my own, nevertheless they have not my responsibilities. I have to take such responsibilities and to estimate to the best of my ability, and I say frankly to the Committee that my estimates are genuine ones—they do not conceal something deliberately kept back or under-estimated for the purpose of having a surplus.
Let us consider some of the suggestions that have been made. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen quarrels with me about


the 3d. increase and says it is a very inconvenient amount. I agree that it is inconvenient amount, but although I do not myself make the calculations which are necessary in calculating Income Tax at the source, I doubt very much whether firms will have to add to their staffs in order to deal with the 3d. instead of the 6d. But inconvenient as it may be to have an increase of 3d. in the Income Tax, it would have been still more inconvenient to most of us if the increase had been one of 6d. My hon. Friend said that he would rather have an increase of 6d., but he then added next year, and nothing this year. Of course, we all know how the sinner salves his conscience by saying he will do something next year instead of this year; there is always the possibility that he may be dead before next year. If my hon. Friend searches his conscience very thoroughly, I think he will see that that is really an evasion, and if he had had the courage of his convictions he would have said that he preferred 6d. this year and not next year. Then we should have had protests from many quarters in the House against any such view.
No, I have had in mind the very fact which the hon. Member brought out, namely, that a substantial—what my hon. Friend would call a convenient—increase in the Income Tax would have had a depressing effect upon trade and industry throughout the country, and I was anxious to avoid that if I could. I am bound to say that although the fact that the increase which I had to make was unexpected and did at first produce a natural shock of surprise and disappointment, yet I think one may say that within a few days trade and industry had quite recovered from the shock and went ahead without any shock or any psychological depression due to the additional taxation which I had to impose.
My hon. Friend would desire to meet the expenditure on armaments to a large extent by loans. I do not think this would be a convenient moment for me to enter upon any general discussion, additional to what I said in my Budget statement, on the principles which should govern us in deciding whether future instalments of expenditure upon armaments should be met out of taxation or out of loans, or in what relative proportion they should be met out of those two sources. I would only say that when and if we do

come to the time when discussion would be appropriate—when, for example, on some future occasion I had to come before the House and ask its opinion on a proposal to raise by loan the money required for armaments—I do not think it would be found possible to differentiate in the way suggested between capital expenditure and current expenditure on armaments.
Reference to the speeches to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) alluded in connection with the Naval Defence loan would show how in practice it was found that those items which were thought to be most undeniably of a capital character and most easily distinguishable from items of a current character were, in fact, found to be of a current character themselves. Although it is undoubtedly the intention to suggest that circumstances are of such an exceptional nature that it is really only fair that posterity should bear the burden instead of ourselves, the very easiness of that argument convinces me that it cannot operate in practice, and I think it would be necessary, if we came to consider the matter from the practical point of view, with practical proposals, to find other criteria than anything so simple as that suggested by my hon. Friend.
There is only one other observation on which I wish to comment and that is the remark made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) that if this taxation is not absolutely necessary it is very hard upon a large number of Income Tax payers who have suffered great sacrifice already by reason of the Conversion Loan. I cannot accept that view as being an accurate one. After all, those who depend for their income upon fixed interest know that that fixed interest must vary in different degrees and at different times, but roughly speaking follow the rates of interest of the time. If you invest your money in a security which is not redeemable for a certain number of years, you know that when the time comes at which it is redeemable you will have to accept a different rate of interest; it may be that you will be able to invest your money at a higher rate or at a lower rate of interest, according to the conditions of the time. I do not think it would be proper to describe that as a sacrifice. Nor is it right to


speak as though the whole burden occasioned by the conversion operations fell entirely upon the small Income Tax payer. There are many other people who, although they suffered a loss of income by reason of the fact that gilt-edged securities no longer gave the same return, had nevertheless other securities of a different character in their possession which had produced a very considerable increase, and the one thus set off the other.
If we are to take the case of the small Income Tax payer, I would remind my hon. Friend that, at any rate where the small Income Tax payer is a married man, particularly when he has a family, I have made provision in this same Budget to help him. In announcing my proposals for the increase in the allowances for children and the married allowance, I specifically mentioned the fact that many of the small Income Tax payers who derive their income largely from gilt-edged securities had suffered a loss of income which no doubt had occasioned them considerable hardship. Under the provisions of the Budget, taken as a whole, the married people are not going to suffer. I hope my hon. Friend will bear that in mind and will remember, when he speaks of unnecessary taxation, that we have in front of us a rapidly-increasing expenditure, what he and I, and other hon. Members believe to be a very necessary form of expenditure, namely, that on restoring our armaments. He probably would not take the view that in no circumstances should any of this expenditure be borne out of revenue, but would probably agree with me that if not this year at any rate next year taxation would be necessary. If I had said that I would pass over this year, but that taxation would have to be expected in the future, without, of course, being able to specify the amount, that would have been far more calculated to undermine confidence and to make people feel that something was hanging over them, the extent of which they could not measure, than what I have done, which is to provide, at any rate to some extent, the moral justification for borrowing in the future by showing that the taxpayer of to-day is prepared to accept to the limit of his reasonable capacity the burden of the armaments which are for

his own security as well as for that of posterity.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: In rising to take part in this discussion I feel rather in the position of an outsider who intervenes in a family quarrel. I am inclined to ask, as did the Irishman who saw a scuffle going on in the street, "Is this a private fight or can anybody join in?" However, as this is not simply an annual meeting of the Conservative party but a Debate in this House, I suppose it is open to one rising from these benches to give his views on the subjects which have been before us during the last hour and a half. To a very considerable extent the Debate has been on the merits of payment out of income or borrowing in order to meet expenditure. In connection with that the Debate has turned on the question of inflationary policy, and what happened in the year 1931 has naturally played its part. I do not intend to stray for very long into that field, but I think it is right that I should refer to what happened on that occasion.
I agree with the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) that the prosperity which has partially been restored in the course of the last few years owes its origin to the fact that in 1931 this country was freed from the restraint of the gold basis of its currency. That the prosperity did not show itself earlier was due to the policy of cheese-paring economy which was imposed on the country by the Government and the Bank of England at that time. There was economy not merely in public expenditure but in that of local authorities and private individuals, so that there was a tremendous retrenchment of outlay, which prevented the expansion and recovery which would otherwise have taken place. When a year or two had elapsed the Government abandoned the exaggerated theory of economy which they had been preaching and relaxed the measures which had been pressing down upon opportunities for development. Then the recovery, due to the freedom from the Gold Standard, began to take effect. Therefore, to that extent I agree with the hon. Member for East Aberdeen on that issue, and I agree further with the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J.


Wardlaw-Milne) that any attempt to reimpose a deflationary policy on this country would be disastrous.
In support of my view I would give the example of a small but an important country where a monetary policy of avoiding deflation and adopting proper methods of expansion has produced admirable results. I refer to that important Scandinavian country, Sweden, where singularly good results have been achieved from the controlled expansion of public activities. Where I differ from the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire, and, to a certain extent, from the Mover of the Amendment, is that while I think an expansionist policy on public developments of a reproductive kind can properly be undertaken during a period of depression, an entirely different position arises with regard to the expansion of armaments. Armaments, it seems to me, ought not to be paid for out of borrowed money. I see an immense chasm between borrowing for the expansion of the resources of the country and the development of its reproductive assets, and borrowing to pay for vast armaments and in so far as the hon. Member for East Aberdeen did put forward any suggestion of that kind, I submit that it is a proposition which must be viewed with grave misgiving.
I pass from those general considerations, which I think have properly exercised the minds of most speakers in this Debate, to the particular Amendment before the Committee and the question of whether the rate of Income Tax ought to be increased or not. I wish, if I can, to set at rest once and for all the idea that the party with which I am associated make light of an increase in the Income Tax. I recognise, as I believe the great bulk, if not the whole of this party recognise, that there are large numbers of people to whom Income Tax is a very serious burden. That is particularly true of the smaller people, on whose standard of life even a trivial tax presses with undue severity. What we on, these benches do say and what is, I think, borne out by recent investigations which have attracted a great deal of attention in the Press, is that of the various forms of taxation, direct taxation, such as Income Tax, Super-tax, Surtax and Death Duties, is a less serious evil than indirect taxation which presses on the poorest of the people.
We say that if there must be taxation, if people have to bear these burdens at all, it is more fitting that the taxes should be placed on those who have some margin of health and strength available to meet them rather than upon those who are already below a proper standard of health and efficiency, who must suffer to a greater degree in their standard of life under these burdens, and who cause greater expense to the nation in the recovery of that health which they ought never to have lost. This Amendment is designed to keep Income Tax at the present level of 4s. 6d. instead of allowing it to rise, as the Chancellor proposes, to 4s. 9d. If that were done the Chancellor would be confronted with a loss of £12,000,000. To meet that loss he must either borrow the money—and I have already explained that in our view however desirable borrowing may be for capital development it is undesirable for expenditure on additional armaments—or he must find it in alternative ways I oppose. There is no other way, unless he puts the burden upon the higher ranges of Income Tax and he has decided that that course would be undesirable—

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: If it is necessary to find it at all.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The Chancellor has assured us that he has made his estimate on the basis of this yield and we are bound to accept that assurance. It may be that when it is worked out the result may prove to be different from the Estimate, but I do not think we can ask the right hon. Gentleman to raise his Budget forecast by £12,000,000. He cannot, in order to satisfy hon. Members opposite, recast his figures. For better or worse those who are responsible to him, as he is responsible to us, have given these figures as the estimate of the revenue in certain circumstances. We are hound to accept those figures as being broadly accurate and thus there are only the two alternatives which I have already indicated. Therefore, I come to this point. Much as we realise the hardship of an increase in the Income Tax, we prefer that increase to any other form of taxation which the Committee is likely to adopt. We prefer it to borrowing for armaments and though we do not minimise the sufferings of those, particularly people of


humble means, who have to pay Income Tax, we shall not support the Amendment. If it goes to a Division we shall support the Government.

Mr. MABANE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has dealt with what still seems to me the novel doctrine advanced by the Financial Secretary, and I think the House is indebted to him for having given such a full explanation of the new reasons why budgeting is more loose now than it was in the past. In view of that explanation I ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 14.—(Personal allowance of married persons.)

6.55 p.m.

Mr. CREECH JONES: I beg to move, in page 11, line 12, to leave out "one hundred and eighty," and to insert "two hundred and twenty-five."
I am encouraged to move this Amendment by some of the speeches which we have heard this afternoon in regard to the heavy burden falling on the middle and the lower middle classes and the reservoirs of wealth which still exist among those who enjoy the higher ranges of income. What the Amendment seeks to do is to get back to the position, which existed in 1931 when the figure of exemption in respect of personal allowance for married persons was £225. It is true that the Chancellor has made a concession this year by raising the figure from £170 to £180 and it may be true that the concessions which have been made to married persons with children outweigh the cost of the new taxation which they will have to bear, but I would point out that persons of this class are still very heavily burdened if not by new direct taxation at least by the increasing amount of indirect taxation. The people mostly affected by the Amendment constitute an important section of the community. They contribute very largely to the intellectual life and vigour of the community and we feel that the strain which is at present imposed on them ought in some degree to be relieved.

Therefore we ask that the figure of exemption should be restored to £225 as it was in 1931.
As has been pointed out, we on these benches strongly believe that instead of imposing further indirect taxation on this section of the community the Government ought to give them some relief and that heavier burdens should fall on the higher ranges of income. We believe that there are still large reservoirs of wealth which can be tapped and also that there is a considerable amount of expenditure at. present which is extravagant. We have heard a great deal about subsidies to various industries which involve heavy expenditure. That expenditure should be cut in certain directions and the additional money required for armaments should be secured by taxing those who are best able to bear that taxation. The speeches this afternoon have clearly indicated that among the well-to-do there is still a considerable amount of prosperity, and we feel that they ought to make an increasing contribution and help to provide a better standard of life for people on the lower ranges of income. I sincerely hope, therefore, that the Amendment will have the sympathetic attention of the Chancellor and the Committee.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I want to support this Amendment because I think that at the bottom of it there is a bigger principle than just asking for the increased amount. We on these benches hold that under our system of taxation there should be a standard for the household, and that then you should begin to tax people according to their means. We contend that £180 is not the point at which taxation ought to start for a married couple. £225 may not be the right amount; it may be that our claim is somewhat modest. We want to give married people a fair standard before taxation is levied. I am not very good as a mathematician, but I contend that we should be able to find the additional money from the higher ranges of income. We could establish a graduated system of taxation on higher incomes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may reply, "Will the hon. Member tell me where I can get the money?" We have got to try and equalise it as well as we can. I


am satisfied from the figures given to me that there would be no difficulty in finding the additional money. If I could be satisfied that there was a doubt about that, then perhaps £180 would have to be the figure, but I am satisfied that we have enough surplus wealth throughout the country to enable this change to be made. The hon. and gallant Member for South Leicester (Captain Waterhouse) is smiling. I do not know his banking account. Probably he is one who is above the £225 limit, and he and his wife would have to pay more than they do now. Probably I should myself, but no one can object to paying a little more if they have the means.
Once I had the idea that thrift was a wonderful thing, but I question now whether it is in the interest of the nation, because when you are thrifty the money you save is stagnant, whereas when a man or a woman spends reasonably on the useful things of life—not extravagantly; I do not want a person to live in a way that will undermine his health—the money spent is being circulated, it is creating employment and is giving a greater measure of justice to all than does the hoarding of money. Therefore in this proposal we are doing something for the nation and it is creditable of the Labour Party to have made the proposal. Hon. Members opposite generally listen to our arguments but do not accept them for the time being. Later they say "There is something in what these people say" and they begin to accept it. On this occasion let them accept our proposal to-night; do not wait for a year or two. There is a great opportunity for the Chancellor to go down to posterity as a man of wise judgment if he will accept our Amendment.

7.6 p.m.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: I like always to be able to accept the arguments of the hon. Gentleman and his friends, and I do not suppose that there is any Member of this House who would not like in normal circumstances to support a proposal that these allowances be increased to £225. But I was amazed at the hon. Member's statement that he had passed the period when he believed in thrift. This is quite a new theory to me and I am glad to see that as a principle it is not accepted by any class of the community, as is shown by the

enormous increases in the deposits in the building societies and savings banks, which is a good thing for the country. I entirely agree with the hon. Member as to the desirability of circulating expenditure and that is why I have never been able to take part in some of the tirades of my Socialist friends against the alleged millionaire, a popular platform figure. To me the millionaire—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that we might talk about this fascinating subject on a more suitable occasion.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: I bow to your Ruling, but it has a pertinent effect on the point before the House, because, if it be argued that money given in this way will be circulated, I am entitled to say that those who have a great deal of money must circulate it or they will die with it, in which case we take most of it. Thus the millionaire has not worried me as much as he has some of my hon. Friends. All of us in ordinary circumstances would be delighted to support this proposal, but the people who would be affected mainly by this Amendment, are the only class of people who are benefiting by this Budget. The man with £500 a year and three children under the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will actually pay less next year than he paid last year. He will pay the large sum of £3 4s. 4d. in Income Tax, whereas last year he paid £6. This proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is actually a tax on bachelors. The whole of his proposals are greatly in favour of the married man with two or three children. To that I have no objection at all, but in effect the tax is going to fall on those who are unmarried and with larger incomes.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. BENSON: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) seemed rather amused at the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) when he said that he was not particularly convinced that thrift was the wonderful virtue which it was supposed to be in his younger days. I think that the last speaker did not quite do the hon. Member justice on this point. It has been discovered that a good deal of our economic troubles may be traced to the fact that the countries of the world at


the present moment are tending to apply too much of their annual income to saving, which ultimately goes into investment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I stopped the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) when he tried to develop this point. We cannot go into it on this Amendment.

Mr. BENSON: I want to suggest that here we are proposing to alter the incidence of this tax and proposing by our Amendment to exclude a certain group of individuals who have less than £225 a year. I propose not to develop very seriously the economic argument as to the effect of capital expenditure as against expenditure on consumers' goods, but I want to point out that the particular class we are proposing to exclude from taxation are a class who are not normally in a position to make very great annual savings. Any taxation which falls on them has an immediate effect in the curtailment of their expenditure on consumable goods. By our Amendment we tend to throw the taxation on the saving class of the community.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is a permissible argument in the debate on the Budget, but we must keep to these Amendments as they stand. No Amendment has been produced to shift the balance of taxation. We cannot go into the other side and say how it can he made up.

Mr. BENSON: Am I not entitled to anticipate the reply of the Chancellor, that he cannot afford the loss of revenue and, if not, can the Chancellor make that reply?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can suggest that something else can be done, but he cannot go into any elaborate argument as to how he would adjust taxation. We must keep to the Amendment itself.

Mr. BENSON: In that case I will only say that reduction of the taxation which falls on those with little saving capacity is worth while considering, and we hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take into consideration the need of the greater expenditure of the country on consumable goods. I am entitled to assume that the Chancellor of the Ex-

chequer will reply that he cannot afford the revenue. He may say that we have; already passed Clauses 12 and 13 and that no adjustment of tax is possible to meet the gap, but when we come to Clause 19 we shall have an ample opportunity of raising adequate revenue by stiffening up the proposals there against evasion, which will enable us to make good any revenue which he sacrifices by accepting our Amendment.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: I think any married man in the House must be grateful to the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. The only criticism that I would make of the speeches of the hon. Members would be that I seemed to detect that the universality of their benevolence towards the married man was to some degree tempered with another sentiment towards the class of taxpayer to whom they referred as those with the higher ranges of income. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) was correct in his anticipation, and when I tell the Committee that this proposal would cost £8,000,000 in a full year, it will be evident that my right hon. Friend could not accept it without gravely imperilling the whole balance of his Budget.
I wish to call attention to the changed position now obtaining as regards the actual amount of Income Tax falling upon married people in particular as compared with what the burden was in 1931. The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) based some part of his argument for this Amendment upon the plea that we ought to get back to the pre-1931 position. My first point is that the actual figures now obtaining cannot be contrasted in that easy fashion with the 1931 figures, because there have been alterations in the other reliefs to which Income Tax payers of this class are entitled which completely alter the total burden falling upon them. The earned income relief, for example, is higher than it was before 1931, the child allowance is being raised by this Finance Bill to a higher point than it has ever reached before, and the reduction in the charge on the first slice of the taxpayer's income from a, half to a third of the standard rate which was effected last year—all these things have provided new and very substantial reliefs for this particular section of the taxpaying community.
I would give as an example of that one or two figures. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) based a part of his argument upon what he considered was the starting point of a taxpayer's income, which he took at £225 if his Amendment were carried, and not £180 as at present. On account of these other reliefs to which I have drawn attention, however, the starting point is very much higher than £225 now. In fact, a married couple with three children, and subsisting on earned income, can earn, under this particular Finance Bill, as much as £450 a year without paying any Income Tax at all.

Mr. TINKER: Surely I am not wrong in thinking that in the case of a married couple without children, their taxable income does not start at £180?

Mr. MORRISON: I am dealing in the first place with the case of a married couple with three children, and I am telling the hon. Member that, on account of the changes which are being effected in this Bill, you have, as a matter of fact, an income of £450 coming into such a household and they are not paying any Income Tax at all. With regard to the married couple without children, and assuming that the income is earned income, such a couple can earn, as the hon. Member said, at the present moment £225 without paying any tax at all.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We say "Thank you" for that, but we want something more.

Mr. MORRISON: I think I have demonstrated that, owing to the other reliefs which ought to be taken into consideration in comparing the position with 1931, this particular section of the taxpaying community is not so badly dealt with as has been indicated in some of the speeches that we have heard this evening. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) mentioned some figures and put the case of a married couple with three children. He was correct to a shilling in his assumption of what such a household would pay in Income Tax with an income of £500. The sum would be £3 3s. 4d., whereas before this particular Finance Bill it would have been £6. I submit, therefore, first, that the cost of this proposal is too great to permit of its acceptance and, secondly, that the case for it on the merits is not as strong as a mere comparison of the 1931 figures with the present-day figures would suggest, because one has to take into account the alterations in the tax effected by the other reliefs which fall upon these persons. For these reasons I regret that it is not possible to accept the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 202; Noes, 132.

Division No. 227.]
AYES.
[7.24 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Channon, H.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Chapman, A. (Ruthergten)
Entwistie, C. F.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Christie, J. A.
Erskine Hill, A. G.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Fildes, Sir H.


Aske. Sir R. W.
Colfox. Major W. P.
Findlay, Sir E.


Atholl, Duchess of
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.
Fleming, E. L.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Colman, N. C. D.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Furness, S. N.


Balfour, Capt. H. H.(Isle of Thanet)
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Ganzonl, Sir J.


Balniel, Lord
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Gibson, C. G.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Gluckstein, L. H.


Beaumont, Hon R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)


Bernads, R. H.
Cranborne, Viscount
Gunston, Capt. D. W.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Guy, J. C. M.


Bossom, A. C
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hannah, I. C.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Crossley, A. C.
Harbord. A.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Crowder, J. F. E.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Culverwell, C. T.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.


Burghley, Lord
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Holmes, J. S.


Burgin, Dr. E. L
Drewe, C.
Hope, Captain Hon. F. F. A.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Hopkinson, A.


Cary, R. A.
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L


Cautley, Sir H. S.
Duncan, J. A, L.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Dunglass, Lord
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Eckersley, P. T.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chipenham)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hunter, T.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br. W.)
Emery, J. F,
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Jackson, Sir H.




Jarvis, Sir J. J.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Palmer, G. E. H.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Keeling, E. H.
Patrick, C. M.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Penny, Sir G.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Lees-Jones, J.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Leighton, Major B. E, P.
Petherick, M.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Liddall, W. S.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Little, Sir E. Graham-
Pilkington, R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Lloyd, G. W.
Radford, E. A.
Sutcliffe, H.


Loftus, P. C.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Ramsbotham, H.
Tate, Mavis C.


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Ramsden, Sir E.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Mac Andrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


McCorquodale, M. S.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Reid, W. Allen (Derby)
Titchfield, Marquess of


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Tulnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


McKle, J. H.
Rots, Major Sir R. D, (L'derry)
Turton, R. H.


Macmillan, H. (Stocktonon-Tees)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Wakefield, W w.


Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Rowlands, G.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Maitland, A.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Warrender. Sir V.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Salt, E. W.
Wells, S. R.


Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Moreing, A. C
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Morgan, R. H.
Scott, Lord William
Wise, A. R.


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Womerstey, Sir W. J.


Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.



Nail, Sir J.
Simmonds, O. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES-


Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Sir James Blindell and Captain


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Waterhouse.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Groves, T. E.
Oliver, G. H.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Owen, Major G.


Adams, D (Consett)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Paling, W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hardie, G. D.
Parker, J.


Adamson, W. M.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Parkinson, J. A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Potts, J.


Banfield, J. W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Price, M. P.


Barnes, A. J.
Holland, A.
Pritt, D. N.


Batey, J.
Hopkin, D.
Outbell, D. J. K.


Bellenger, F.
Jagger, J.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Benson, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Riley, B.


Bevan, A.
Jenkins. Sir W. (Neath)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Broad, F. A.
John, W.
Rowson, G.


Bromfield, W.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Seely, sir H. M.


Brooke, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Shinwell, E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Short, A.


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Burke, W. A.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cape, T.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Chater, D.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, T. (Normonton)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lathan, G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Compton, J.
Leach, W.
Stephen, C.


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leonard, W.
Strauss. G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Daggar, G.
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dalton, H.
Lunn, W.
Thorne, W.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Daviet, S. O. (Merthyr)
McEntee, V. La T.
Viant, S. P.


Dobble, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Walkden. A. G.


Dunn, E. (Rother Vailey)
MacLaren, A.
Walker, J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maclean, N.
Watkins, F. C.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Watson, W. McL.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mander, G. le M.
Westwood, J.


Gardner, B. W.
Marklew, E.
. Whiteley, W.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Marshall, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Maxton, J.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Gibbins, J.
Messer, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Milner, Major J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Montague, F.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Grenfell, D. R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)



Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Muff, G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Naylor, T. E.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Charleton.


Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Ordered, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain Margesson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — AIR NAVIGATION BILL.

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 28th May.]

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

NEW CLAUSE.—(Trespassing at liceased aerodromes.)

If any person trespasses on any land forming part of an aerodrome licensed in pursuance of an Order in Council under Part I of the principal Act, he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding five pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to both such fine and such imprisonment:

Provided that no person shall be liable to any penalty under this Section unless it is proved that, at the material time, unless warning trespassers of their liability under this Section were posted, so as to be readily seen and read by members of the public, in such positions on or near the, boundary of the aerodrome as appear to the court to be proper.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.33 p.m

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I do not think that this new Clause will prove to be contentious, and I hope that it will be acceptable to the Committee. It is in everybody's interest that people should not trespass on aerodromes and that there should be penalties somewhat similar to those for trespass on railways.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I agree that there is not much of a contentious character in this Clause, but I would like to take the opportunity of obtaining an assurance from the Attorney-General in regard to a point that has arisen in connection with service aerodromes in the past. I refer to the position of trade union organisers in their relations with the maintenance staffs on aerodromes. In some cases there has been a difficulty at service aerodromes

in regard to the practice of certain trade unions in the building industry whereby building firms allow a trade union representative to be upon the works in order to discuss matters with the members of the union. Difficulties have arisen because aeroplanes on the secret list are sometimes on an aerodrome and the commanding officer has to be allowed to use his discretion. Where a commanding officer is rather unfavourable to trade unionism there has been friction. I merely ask for an assurance that this new Clause will not be interpreted to mean that difficulty is to be put in the way of reasonable trade union demands being agreed to in order to carry out the practice I have mentioned.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. PERKINS: May I ask whether it would be possible under this Clause for owners of aerodromes, whether municipal or private, to close old-fashioned footpaths over aerodromes by the simple process of putting up notices at each end of the paths? Will it also be possible for owners of aerodromes to extend them and close roads in doing so? There are cases near London where the owners of aerodromes cannot extend because it would mean closing roads, and in order to close a road near London one has to go to a great deal of legal expense. Will it be possible for such an owner to close a road under this Clause by merely putting up a notice at each end of the road? Will this proposed Clause affect the old-established right of an Englishman to go seeking mushrooms? I have been informed that I am within my rights if I walk on any service aerodrome, and that they have no right to turn me off provided I say that I am looking for mushrooms.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. SIMMONDS: The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Everard) and other hon. Friends of mine had a new Clause on the Order Paper in similar terms to this one, and, although I have not had an opportunity of discussing it with them, I feel sure that they will be grateful to the Under-Secretary for putting down a Clause to prevent a difficulty which was causing serious concern to many aerodrome owners. Such a provision is necessary not only for the sake of those who might trespass upon aerodromes, but for the sake of those who might be


passengers in civil aircraft. The presence of trespassers might lead to serious disaster by causing a crash or prejudicing the freedom of a pilot to select his landing or taking-off ground.

Mr. G. HARDIE: Does this Clause relate only to foot passengers If an aeroplane were forced down on to an aerodrome would it constitute trespass? If the Clause is to work smoothly, it seems to me that we must have provision to meet the case of aeroplanes that are forced down on to aerodromes so that they will be exempted from the charge of trespass.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. EVERARD: As a new Clause on this point stood in my name, I would like to thank the Under-Secretary for the way in which he has met us. I appreciate the point of the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie), but I think that, in the case of an aeroplane which is forced down through engine trouble, anybody who has charge of an aerodrome would be only too pleased to allow him to make use of such facilities as exist. I am certain that there would be no question of trespass in a case like that. This new Clause is put down for only two purposes. One is to make more clear the position of the people on the ground. For people to gather mushrooms, or pick dandelions to make dandelion wine, or pick blackberries, is dangerous on an aerodrome, particularly when the weather is not good. Another reason is that if a pilot, in endeavouring to land, finds people on the ground who have no right there, their presence may force him to carry out some manoeuvre which may endanger the aeroplane and the passengers in it. I am glad, therefore, that my right hon. Friend has been able to introduce this provision, for it not only makes the position of people on the ground more secure, but it does something towards the security of air navigation.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) raised the question of rights of way across the landing grounds of aerodromes. It will be a very serious matter if this Clause affects such rights of way. Rights of way are

something sacred and are not to be disposed of lightly by a new Clause in this Bill. According to the hon. Member's reading of the Clause all that owners of aerodromes will have to do is to put up a notice—

Mr. PERKINS: I merely asked a question.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am thankful that the hon. Member asked the question, because I am anxious to get it cleared up. All that owners have to do, according to the hon. Member's reading of the new Clause—and his reading is the reading of aerodrome owners—is to put up a notice at each end of the right of way, and it can be closed. Our forefathers have in many cases gone to prison in order to ensure that rights of way are maintained. Is all that sacrifice to go for nothing? I hope that the Attorney-General will make it clear that rights of way are not to be handed over to aerodromes. All our rights, our privileges and our liberties are at stake in everything we do now because of the war atmosphere that has been created. Everything has got to be sacrificed. I can see that this may be the thin end of the wedge in the sacrificing of rights of way. I hope the Attorney-General will be able to satisfy us that rights of way will not be handed away so easily to any aerodrome owner, whether a municipality or a private person. It ought to be made more difficult to close any right of way.

7.45 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I can completely reassure the Committee on the point raised by one or two hon. Members and emphasised by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). If there is a right of way or a road across an aerodrome a person using that right of way or that road is not trespassing, and this Clause applies only to persons trespassing on an aerodrome, that is to say, persons who are doing what they have no right to do. The point raised by the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) is, I think, outside what one would regard as the general purview of this Clause. The presence at an aerodrome of trade union organisers watching work going on is a matter for negotiation and, one hopes, amicable agreement between the persons employing the men concerned and the


trade union. If the hon. Member has any special cases in mind my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary will be glad to consider them; but the general purpose of this Clause is not concerned with anything of that kind, but is to enable a penalty to be imposed with the object of preventing people from wandering over land where they have no right to go and where they may incur grave dangers. The point as to mushrooms is a somewhat new one to me. I did not know that there was a general right to pick mushrooms on anybody else's land, and, indeed, I hope that any mushrooms which grow in the small fields which I have the privilege of possessing belong to me and can be gathered by me alone.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: Not unless you put up a notice that you cultivate them.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If that is so, and I accept the statement, I think it is in the general interest of the public that their mushrooming activities should be restricted to that very large part of the area of this country which is not used as aerodromes. The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) raised a point as to aeroplanes making forced landings. Speaking for myself, it is very difficult for me to imagine anybody prosecuting an airman for trespassing if it is a case of a forced landing, whether on an aerodrome or anywhere else. It certainly is not the intention that this Clause should apply to that class of case. The Clause is to apply to pedestrians or, possibly, to motor cyclists. But I will undertake to look into the point and, if we think it necessary, to add words to make it clear that aeroplanes which are forced to make a landing shall not be subject to the penalties of the Clause.

7.50 p. m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: I am rather puzzled to know what necessity there can be for this Clause. I thought the existing law conferred certain rights upon the owners of land, that a person who crossed private land was a trespasser.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The notice, "Trespassers will be prosecuted" is not strictly accurate. A trespasser on land can be proceeded against civilly for any damage which he may have done, but he cannot be prosecuted for being there. This Clause does enable a prosecution to

be undertaken against people who trespass, if the requisite notices have been put up on the aerodrome land.

Mr. BEVAN: Yes, I always understood that one had to prove damage before a person could be sued for trespass; but it seems hard lines that someone who is gathering mushrooms in an adjoining field and sees a particularly luscious lot of mushrooms just over the hedge of the aerodrome should be liable to a fine of £5 and go to prison for a month, if he goes in search of those fruity-looking mushrooms. It is an excessive penalty for yielding to so strong a temptation. Ought not the penalty to be somewhat more limited? I appreciate the force of the argument that an airman who is going to land should be protected against the possibility of finding people walking about on the aerodrome and that the people who are walking about should be protected from the danger of being knocked down by the aeroplane, but ought we not to confine this penalty to trespassing on the actual landing field? The landing field is only part of an aerodrome.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: No, the landing field is the whole aerodrome. You are lucky if you succeed in landing in the middle of the aerodrome. Very often an airman only just succeeds in pulling up at the very edge of the aerodrome.

Mr. BEVAN: But an aerodrome will not be all landing field, yet this Clause will apply, apparently, to all parts of the enclosure. I should not have thought that a landing field was co-equal with the area of the aerodrome. I am astonished to hear that contention put forward. I could take hon. Members to almost any aerodrome and show them land which is not part of the landing field. The point I make is that this severe penalty ought not to apply to trespassers on the portions of the aerodrome where the danger from landing aeroplanes does not arise. It is a heavy penalty, and I ask the Under-Secretary whether some words cannot be introduced to limit the penalty to those who trespass on the landing field, leaving the existing law to deal with those who might be on other parts of the aerodrome.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: I feel that we ought to proceed a little carefully when


we are turning what is at present a civil wrong into a criminal wrong. The primary object of the Clause is not to harm the people who may be proceeded against, but to protect them; it is a safety Clause, and, therefore, we have to be sensible about it. But what is the practice of railway companies? They have powers to prosecute in case of trespass, and so also have authorities like the Port of London Authority and the Liverpool Docks and Harbour Board, and I think we ought to know whether these powers are analogous. Another point has been suggested to me by a private Bill which is being promoted by the Birmingham Corporation. The Birmingham Corporation are not only going to establish an aerodrome but to establish a protective area around that aerodrome. They are not buying that additional area of land but are limiting the rights of the owners of the land, subject to compensation, in certain eventualities. Is this protected area going to be treated as part of the aerodrome? If it is, then a much bigger issue is raised. The Birmingham Corporation's Bill is the first which happens to raise this particular issue, and on the Order Paper there is a notice in the name of a number of hon. Members, including myself, rather challenging the whole conception underlying this protected area; because if every municipality with an aerodrome is going to sterilise a whole lot of additional land we ought to take note of where we are travelling; and if one cannot trespass on that additional land without committing a criminal offence the position may become rather serious.

Mr. EVERARD: This Clause applies to a. licensed aerodrome. The Corporation of Birmingham are proposing to take a certain amount of land for which they will seek a licence from the Air Ministry. This Clause refers only to the part of the land which is licensed. If the area of that aerodrome is increased by licensing further land then that additional land would come within the scope of this Clause, but it will only come within it when it is licensed.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The Birmingham Corporation are raising an entirely new issue. An aerodrome consists of the land which the aerodrome authority either own or

lease, but under the Birmingham Bill the corporation are going to take powers over land which is not part of the aerodrome, as we understand it, but may, nevertheless, be brought in under any licence granted by the Air Ministry. It raises an entirely new point which has actually not come before the House, because the Bill has not yet been submitted for Second Reading.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. SIMMONDS: I think the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) has omitted to notice that an aerodrome includes in addition to what we may call the landing area proper, another area which we may call the technical area, to differentiate it from any hotel or garden on the aerodrome and that it is important to keep trespassers away from that technical area. At a busy aerodrome there may be 40 or 50 aeroplanes standing out on the ground, unguarded. We all know the havoc that souvenier hunters can wreak, and there is the risk of a trespasser doing some small damage to an aeroplane which, though it is insignificant damage in his eyes may render that aeroplane completely unairworthy. Therefore, although there may be substance in what is said about not increasing the scope for prosecuting trespassers, it is important to recollect that in addition to the landing area there are other parts of an aerodrome from which it is important to keep trespassers.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. BEVAN: I would press the Attorney-General to give us some satisfaction on this matter, because the speech of the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) rather emphasises the gravity of the step which it is proposed to take under this Clause. If someone wanders into an aerodrome and damages an aeroplane you can proceed against him for damage. The same thing might happen in a garage. An expensive motor car in a garage might be damaged by somebody, but you do not put a Clause into a Bill making it a criminal offence to trespass in a garage. That is the point which has been raised here. One reason why the Clause is put in is the danger arising from people wandering on to the landing field, and I want to know why we do not confine the operations of the Clause to the landing field? It is not right that the House of Commons should


expose the civilian population to criminal action for wandering on land which is exactly similar to all other kinds of land around it. It ought to be possible to put words in the Clause by which proceedings could be limited to persons who trespass on, the landing field only.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I find, as the Debate proceeds, that dangers are being raised as a result of the question which was put by my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague), and that the matter is becoming serious. I saw his reason for raising the question, and I do not think that the answer which was received from the Attorney-General is satisfactory from a trade union point of view. From the information which I have been able to glean from the Debate, it is possible that trade union organisers will not be able to get within a mile of those who are working about an aerodrome. Time and time again we have been denied access to works, factories and mines, where we wished to organise the workers. That was all right up to a point, because we had not the power to throttle that activity, but here they are, coming before the House of Commons and asking us to legalise, by this Bill, any petty officer who may be in charge of an aerodrome, in preventing the workers' organiser from getting into touch with workpeople at the aerodrome.
We consider that to be ridiculous and we are not going to stand for it. Wherever we have any power or say in the matter, we shall see to it that the workpeople are free for access by any organisation or organiser of labour at any time. When first I raised the question about the right of way, the Clause in question seemed very serious from that point of view, but this Clause proposes to empower officials or officers who may have control of an aerodrome to prevent organisers of labour from getting near the workers in that aerodrome. I again appeal to the Attorney-General to clear the air a bit more, so as to assure Labour Members that we are not throwing away any right which we have of access in other Government establishments, and that we have the same right here as we have elsewhere.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. MONTAGUE: May I stress the point which has just been made by the

hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood)? I do not think the Attorney-General quite appreciates the point in regard to trade union organisation. May I put it in this way? In the building industry particularly, and with the maintenance staffs who have to do building and repairs, it is the custom that trade union organisers attend the works and obtain conference with members of their unions engaged upon the job. The Clause seeks to make a criminal offence of what is a civil question of damage. Whatever arrangements may be made, by the firm doing the job after obtaining the contracts, with the trade unions of the men working there, it leaves it within the power, not of the contractor who understands the situation, possibly, and who knows what the usual arrangements are in the industry, but of the managers of aerodromes, to exercise their discretion, and probably to express their own feelings against trade unionism, in defiance of practice and with the assistance of a new criminal law.

Mr. KELLY: rose—

Mr. MANDER: On a point of Order. Would it not be proper for the Attorney-General, whose speech was interrupted half an hour ago, to continue the same speech?

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): The hon. and learned Gentleman has given way to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. KELLY: I can assure the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) that I have not the slightest objection to sitting down at this moment and to allowing anyone else to make a speech, if he will make the few points which I want to present to the Committee. I am surprised at such a proposal being made as that which we are discussing, particularly in view of the knowledge which the Department has of the difficulties of many of us in the past in reaching those in the centre of land owned by the Air Ministry, the Army or even by the Admiralty—although we are not discussing any of those Forces. We had the safeguard that, although a notice was put up with regard to trespassing, it was qualified by a statement about people having business on the ground. There is no qualification in the


present proposal, and any person trespassing on the land will be dealt with.
Some of us are probably not very pleasing to officers in the Forces because we have to negotiate in regard to wages And working conditions, and the proposal offers them an opportunity of preventing those of us who are engaged in that useful work, which is of advantage to the country even though it be not liked by the Department, from engaging in it. That will not be peculiar to this Department, except that the Air Ministry, for some reason, seems always desirous to go much further than the other two Forces. What is this secrecy? What is the justification for preventing citizens of this country associating with men and women engaged by the Air Ministry at the aerodromes? There is a desire to keep everybody away from aerodromes for fear that there might be an organisation through which those people could secure conditions which are denied to them by the Government, but which I hope they may be able, by means of organisation, to force the Government to give them one of these days.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Is it not a fact that the Clause deals exclusively with civil aerodromes?

Mr. KELLY: Exactly, and I am coming to them in a moment. I may have appeared to the hon. Member to be a long time in reaching them, but if we permitted those in charge of the Air Ministry to see this power operating at civil aerodromes, I leave it to the imagination of the hon. Member to picture what would be done to us by air marshals and others, if they were given the opportunity. I hope that this proposal will not be pressed. There is no qualification in regard to those who have business on the aerodromes, and to whom it would be an advantage to reach people who were engaged in work there. If this matter is pressed, there will be but one thing to do. Those who really have business there in the interest of the working conditions and wages of the people, will have to defy the law, in order to reach the people.

8.11 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I must apologise to the Committee for speaking the third time, but there are one or two questions with which I would like to deal.

The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) raised questions of the scope and area of the Clause. I will ask the Committee to read the words as they are:
If any person trespasses on any land forming part of an aerodrome.
Most part of an aerodrome is either actual landing ground or potential landing ground, and it is much simpler and more satisfactory not to carve out small portions which might never be used for that purpose. In regard to the mushrooms of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, I should think that a good crop of mushrooms will undoubtedly be growing on land which is part of the landing ground. The hon. Member for South Croydon mentioned the case of land around an aerodrome. In the absence of any express words, the land around would not be part of an aerodrome within the meaning of the Clause, but I suggest if there were any doubt about it, the proper way to deal with it is by putting in express words making it clear that the land was not to be part of the aerodrome for the purposes of the Clause. There was the reference by hon. Members to trade union organisers having access to men who were working. The railway companies have, of course, exactly similar powers as that which is proposed by the Clause. They have the power to put up notices and to make by-laws.

Mr. BEVAN: And to make bad laws.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I sit for a railway town, and I have never had any complaint that trade union officials have difficulty in carrying out the important work which they do on behalf of their members.

Mr. KELLY: There are no notices up at the shops at Crewe.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Notices are put up all the way down the railway line. [Interruption.] I will look into any special case. It should be dealt with by arrangement. Part of the object of the Clause is that nobody has a right to go on another person's land unless by the usual licence from him, and surely the proper way to deal with this business is by arrangement between the parties concerned. If any owner is unreasonable in refusing access, it would be perfectly


legitimate to proceed through the proper channel.

Mr. MONTAGUE: The power of prosecution is being given into the hands of other people entirely.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: The power of prosecution is being given into the hands of those people who have the right to say when anyone shall go on their land. The function and scope of the Clause is, as I have already explained, simply to prevent persons trespassing on land to trespass on which will be a danger to them, and might be a great danger to persons on aeroplanes who were wanting to land. That is the general intention and scope of the Clause, and I hope we may now pass it. Any further points which hon. Members may desire to raise will be looked into.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. HARDIE: Cases may arise in which there is a right of way through an aerodrome, and I want to be sure that any such right of way will be protected. If a right of way runs right through the centre of an aerodrome, will it follow that the right of way will be closed altogether? I believe there is a right of way across the aerodrome at Croydon. Is that to be closed because it is a danger to people to be on that land? Is the aeroplane to be the first consideration, and not the right of way; or will the right of way remain, and will the responsibility be on those traversing the right of way as to whether they are hurt or not?

8.18 p.m.

Mr. CASSELLS: I assume, from the speech of the Attorney-General, that we may take it that the qualification of trespass is to be found where persons actually impinge upon the territory of an aerodrome on which particular notices have been placed giving specific information. It is, however, the penalty that troubles hon. Members on this side. There is not only a monetary penalty, but a penalty of imprisonment together with a monetary fine. I would ask what is the Attorney-General's interpretation of the word "trespass"? Is it necessary that it should be done wilfully? I have listened with the greatest attention to the points which have been made my hon. Members on this side of the Committee with regard to the questions which will

arise when persons might, unwittingly in many cases, impinge upon this sacrosanct space, and questions with regard to forced landings. If the Attorney-General is sincere in his suggestion that these particular cases should be protected, there is no reason why he should not without more ado add the word "wilfully" after the third word on the first line, making the Clause read:
If any person wilfully trespasses

8.20 p.m.

Mr. BEVAN: Did I understand the Attorney-General to say that he is prepared to consider, through the usual channels, suggestions for the modification of the Clause on Report? If that is what he means, we can pass from the Clause, but I did not quite understand that to be his meaning. We are frightened by this penalty. It seems to be a very drastic punishment for wandering on a, piece of land. I think the Attorney-General himself has made it clear that the purpose of the Clause is to protect the lives and limbs of persons who may be on the landing ground, but he must realise that we are concerned with other aspects of the matter. If I wanted to talk with some man employed at an aerodrome, I need not go on the landing ground; I could go to other places, such as the office or the hangar. The Attorney-General says that first of all I must get the permission of the employer in order to be able to talk to the workmen, but does he not realise that the whole experience of trade unionists is that the employer will not listen to you until you can make him? You cannot make him listen until you have enough men in your union, and it is to get men in your union that you want to go there. It seems very hard that, if I want to organise a man inside my union under the British law, I am liable to be sent to prison for a month. It is all very well for the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) to smile, but he dare not go to South Croydon and say that on a public platform.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: I only thought that it might be a good idea if one particular hon. Member went to gaol. I was not thinking of hon. Members in general.

Mr. BEVAN: At the, moment I am concerned to elicit from the Attorney-General, if I can, some assurance that


this point will be considered on Report. I hear hon. Members say "No," but we attach so much importance to this point that the only answer we can make is that we must continue the Debate. We are entitled to say that a man should not be made a criminal because he has wandered on to a piece of grass land, or has attempted to speak to people who are employed there, with the object of organising them in a trade union. If hon. Members want to be fair, they ought to make some sort of concession. Does the Attorney-General mean to consider this matter on Report?

8.24 p.m.

Mr. GARRO JONES: I would ask the Attorney-General, while he is considering some modification of this Clause, seriously to consider whether the Clause is really necessary. Even from the point of view of the flying man I consider that it is totally unnecessary. Its salient characteristic is that it creates a new criminal offence, and it ill becomes the House of Commons to create a new criminal offence without the most careful consideration. In whose interests is it supposed to be that we are creating this new criminal offence? It is supposed to be in the interests of the criminal himself; that is to say, the person who wanders on this land must be prevented from doing so for his own safety. The peril of the roads is infinitely greater than the peril on any aerodrome. The occasion when peril to civilians occurs on an aerodrome on any considerable scale is when there is some great spectacle, such as a trans-Atlantic aviator landing, when no notice boards will be any safeguard at all.
The Attorney-General has told us that when we see these boards with "trespassers will be prosecuted," that is a, false threat. If we pass this Clause we shall have those boards put up on aerodromes and they will not be a false threat, but for the first, time we shall know that they have substance behind them. It would be far more effective if, instead of putting up these boards which have become familiar to everyone who frequents the countryside, and which no longer deter anyone from going on land if he is not intending to commit a trespass, proprietors of aerodromes put up

notices warning people that it is dangerous to wander on to them. It would be a far more effective deterrent and would avoid all the objections to creating a new criminal offence. Moreover, there are greater dangers than civilians on aerodromes which the Clause will not meet or prevent. This will not prevent animals wandering.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sir C. MacAndrew): I do not think animals come under the Clause.

Mr. GARRO JONES: It is suggested that the Clause is justified on the ground that it will ensure the safety of aviators against wanderers on the land. I am pointing out that, though it may in part ensure the safety of aviators from a lesser danger, it leaves unprevented the greater danger of animals and other obstacles on the land, such as trees. The Attorney-General did not favour us with any explanation as to the restrictions on licensing aerodromes in general. Can he assure us that this power of licensing aerodromes will not be exercised in opposition to any public easements or rights that may exist on the land? We have said enough to show that the Clause is wholly unnecessary and that it creates a new criminal offence on grounds which cannot be justified, and the Attorney-General would be wise to consider not only a modification of the Clause but whether it is, in fact, necessary to put it into the Bill.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. KELLY: I was hoping the Attorney-General would tell us the real object of the Clause. I can hardly believe that it is necessary to inflict a month's imprisonment and a fine of £5 in addition in order to save life or prevent personal injury. It is suggested that even cattle do not come under it. I suggest that they do.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: We certainly cannot discuss cattle.

Mr. KELLY: I am not discussing cattle. I am discussing men. If cattle stray on to an aerodrome, the people who look after them must go on to bring them back. Then they are liable to a fine of £5 and a month's imprisonment. They would have difficulty in proving that they are not trespassing in the endeavour to find out the secrets of the aerodrome and


that they have not allowed the cattle to get on to the land to provide them with an excuse for trespassing. There is a great deal more behind this than the reason that we have been told. Why should we require a special Clause when the general law of trespass is good enough for other purposes?

8.33 p.m.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: May I make another appeal to the Attorney-General to give us a clear undertaking that between now and Report he will consider the various objections of substance which my hon. Friends have raised. No one has told us why this Clause should be in the Bill. If it is for reasons of State, we might be told. Surely the Attorney-General and the right hon. Baronet might consider the advisability of considerably modifying the Clause if it must be retained. There is no harm in giving such an undertaking, and it would probably save dividing the Committee.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I thought I made it perfectly clear why the Clause has been brought forward. If I lacked clarity or courtesy, I apologise to

the Committee, but I thought I made it abundantly plain why we suggest that the Clause should be read a Second time. If hon. Members think it should not be read a Second time, much as I regret unfortunate divergencies of opinion, there must be a Division.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. HARDIE: Will the Attorney-General be good enough to give an answer to the question that was put last? If the Clause is wanted, the way to get it is for the representatives of the Government to try to answer questions which are sincerely put. If this Clause goes through, will that part of the ground which will become the centre of an aerodrome be closed or not? I do not want to delay the Committee or to irritate anyone, but I want an answer to that question. I know places where this sort of thing is likely to happen.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It will not be closed.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 179; Noes, 115.

Division No. 228.]
AYES.
[8.38 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Duggan, H. J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Liddall, W. s.


Agnew, Lieut-Comdr, P. G.
Dunglass, Lord
Lindsay, K. M.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman df (B'kn'hd)
Emery, J. F.
Little, Sir E. Graham-


Apsley, Lord
Emrys- Evans, P. V.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Erskine Hill, A. G.
Loftus, P. C.


Ballour, G. (Hampstead)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Bailout, Capt. H. H.(Isle of Thanet)
Everard, W. L.
Lumley, Capt. L. R.


Balniel, Lord
Fildes, Sir H.
Lycns, A. M.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fleming, E. L.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Furness, S. N.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)


Bernays, R. H.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
MajDonald, Rt. Hon M. (Ross)


Birchall, Sir J. D.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Blindell, Sir J.
Gibson, C. G.
McKle, J. H.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Gluckstein, L. H.
Maitland, A.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Mander. le M


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Guy, J. C. M.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hanbury, Sir C.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hannah, I. c.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.


Cary, R. A.
Harbord, A.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Nall, Sir J.


Cautley, Sir H. S.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Neven-Sponce, MaJ. B. H. H.


Channon, H.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.


Christle, J. A.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Holmes. J. S.
Owen, Major G.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Colman. N. C. D.
Hopkinson, A.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Hore-Bellsha, Rt. Hon. L.
Petherick, M.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Honbrugh, Florence
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Cooke. J. D. (Hammersmith. S.)
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Pilkington, R.


Cooper, Rt.Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh. W.)
Hume, Sir G. H
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Courtauld, Major J. O.
Hunter, T.
Radford, E. A.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Culverwell, C. T.
Kerr, K. W. (Oldham)
Ramsbotham, H.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Reed, A. C. (Exster)




Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Titchfield Marquess of


Reid, W. Allen (Derby)
Simmonds, O. E.
Turton, R. H.


Remer, J. R.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Wakefield, W. W.


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A.L. (Hull)


Ropner, Colonel L.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Warrender, Sir V.


Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Rowlands, G.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Wells, S. R.


Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
White, H. Graham


Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Williams, H. G.(Croydon, S.)


Russell, S.H. M.(Darwen)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Salt, E.W.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-(N'thw'h)
Wise, A. R.


Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Scott, Lord William
Sutcliffe, H.
Young, A. S. L.(Partick)


Seely, Sir H. M.
Tasker, Sir R. I.



Shakespeare, G. H.
Tate, Mavis C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Thomas, J. P. L.(Hereford)
Sir George Penny and Commander


Shepperson, Sir E. w.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Southby.




NOES


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hardle, G. D.
Oliver, G. H.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Paling, W.


Adamson, W. M.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Parker, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Parkinson, J. A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Holland, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Banfield, J. W.
Hopkin, D.
Potts, J.


Barnes, A. J.
Jagger, J.
Price, M. p.


Batey. J.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Pritt, O. N.


Bellenger, F.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Outbell, D J. K.


Bevan, A.
John, W.
Riley, B.


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Ritson, J.


Bromfield, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Brooke, W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rowson, G.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Kelly, W. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Shinwell, E.


Burke, W. A.
Kirby, B. V.
Short, A.


Cassells, T.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Simpson, F. B.


Cluse, W. S.
Lathan, G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cripps. Hon. Sir Stafford
Leach, W.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Daggar, G.
Lee, F.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Dalton, H.
Leonard, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Leslie, J. R.
Stephen, C.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dobble, W.
Lunn, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McEntee, V. La T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Edwards. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McGhee, H. G.
Thorne, W.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
McGovern, J.
Tinker, J. J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maclean, N.
Willkden, A. G.


Gallacher. W.
Marklew, E
Walker, J.


Gardner, B. W.
Marshall, F.
Watkins, F. C.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Mathers, G.
Watson, W. McL.


Gibbins, J.
Maxton, J,
Westwood, J.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Messer, F.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Milner, Major J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Grenfell, O. R.
Montague, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Moreing, A. C.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Muff. G.



Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Naylor, T. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.


Question put, and agreed to.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. BEVAN: I have handed in a manuscript Amendment to leave out all the words from "or" in the first paragraph of the new Clause. The Amendment will have the effect of destroying—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sir C. MacAndrew): That is not the Amendment which the hon. Member has handed in.

Mr. BEVAN: It is to leave out the words:
or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: That is not what the hon. Member said.

Mr. GARRO JONES: May I draw attention to the fact that the first "or" is in line 3, and the second "imprisonment" is in line 5.

Mr. BEVAN: I propose to leave out all the words from "or," in line 3, to "imprisonment" in line 5.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: That is not what the hon. Member said at first.

Mr. BEVAN: I do not want to be at cross purposes. I wish to propose to leave out all the words after "or," in line 3, down to "imprisonment" in line 5. It means that we leave out the imprisonment.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: If the hon. Member does that there will be no reference to imprisonment in line 3, but later there will be reference to "such imprisonment." The hon. Member ought to move to leave out from "pounds" to the end of the paragraph in line 5.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The Clause says:
he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding five pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding, one month or to both such fine and such imprisonment.
The hon. Member wishes to leave out the reference to imprisonment.

Mr. BEVAN: The purpose of the Amendment must be clear to the Committee. If not, the matter can be put right on the Report stage quite easily. The purpose of the Amendment is to destroy the imprisonment part of the penalty, and I understand that the Front Bench is not unfavourably disposed towards it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I do not think that the way the hon. Member put it will meet the point. He will need to move to leave out all the words from "pounds," down to the end of line 5.

Mr. BEVAN: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, to leave out from "pounds" in line 3, to the end of line 5.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: As the hon. Member has indicated, we are prepared to advise the Committee to accept the Amendment. The real point of the Clause is that there should be criminal procedure available, but we think that a penalty of £5 is adequate to secure the purpose of the Clause.

Mr. KELLY: I am glad to find that there is to be some improvement of the Clause, but I am not satisfied with the Clause even with the Amendment, and I hope that at some later stage we may be able to knock out the whole thing.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sir C. MacAndrew): The next Clause (Regulations for persons making a temporary visit with aircraft) is unnecessary, and the following Clause (Penalties) is not selected.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Local authority not to trade in supplies or repairs.)

Nothwithstanding anything contained in section eight of the principal Act or in any other enactment a local authority shall not at any aerodrome established by them carry on the business of supplying fuel, lubricants, equipment, or spare parts for aircraft, or of repairing aircraft, or letting aircraft on hire, but a local authority may, if they think fit, grant a lease or licence at the best rent obtainable to any one or more persons or companies of part of the land or buildings comprised in the aerodrome for the purpose of carrying on any such business

Provided always that in granting a lease of or letting the right to supply fuel and oil on such undertaking the corporation shall insert a condition to the effect that no proprietary brands or grades shall be excluded and that fuel or oil shall not be sold at a price in excess of that generally prevailing for similar grades and under similar conditions in other parts of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. H. G. Williams.

Bought up, and read the First time.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I should like also to consider the next Clause, ("Prohibition of municipality carrying on the business of hotels"), which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Mr. Chorlton), who is unable to be present and asked me to look after it for him. It might meet the general convenience of the Committee to have one discussion on the two Clauses, and if there is need for it the second Clause can be moved formally, without discussion. They both cover the same point of principle.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: If that is the wish of the Committee, "I have no objection.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Do you propose to call the second Clause?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I do not say that. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) suggested that a discussion of the principle covered by the two Clauses might be taken on the first Clause.

Mr. JOHNSTON: With great respect, if you do not propose to call the second Clause I submit that there is no reason whatever why it should be discussed. It raises a vitally different point and an entirely different subject, and I submit that if you do not propose to call it, because it is a matter of total irrelevance to this Bill, it ought not to be discussed. I understand that there are certain Amendments which you and your colleagues of the Chair have decided are irrelevant and ought not to be called. I understand that you have already considered this particular Clause, and I submit that if you do not propose to call it at a later stage that the hon. Member for South Croydon ought not to be allowed to discuss it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I am only suggesting that, if the Committee think fit, the principle of the two Clauses might be discussed together. I have no power of selection. I receive my instructions, and I cannot myself decide the matter. If it is the wish of the Committee to discuss these two Clauses together, I have no objection.

Mr. HARDIE: Has the Clause in question been selected?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I cannot answer that question now.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I raised the point because I thought that I might save a little time. The sale of alcoholic spirit and the sale of petroleum spirit raises different issues, I admit, but as in both cases it is suggested that there should be prohibition of sale by a municipality they raise the same political issue. I am, however, moving only the first Clause and I shall say nothing about the second. A very large number of people are engaged to-day, more particularly in the motor car business, in meeting the requirements of the motorists. If you travel round the country there is little or no need to maintain any supplies of these things, because you can get them so frequently. There is a highly organised garage industry. It is obvious, therefore, that if municipal aerodromes are established there will be no shortage of people willing to undertake what I would call the garage work for the aeroplanes in the ordinary way, just as provision is made by garages for the motor cars. There is

no particular reason why the municipalities should enter into this new business, of which in general they have no experience. As long as there are available ample numbers of people who can do this thing in the ordinary way of business, it seems to me very much better that municipalities should not enter into the business. I do not believe in the expansion of municipal trading.

Mr. KELLY: Say that you hate it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I think as a rule it is worse done than that which is done by private enterprise. I think the man who has the unnecessary degree of security which apparently every national or municipal enterprise provides for him, walks where he ought to run. In other words, it tends to make a man more idle than otherwise he would be. Some people are the apostles of idleness, and many of them are on the benches opposite. I rejoice in that because they practice what they preach.

Mr. MATHERS: What security have you?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Our security is what we make for ourselves, in the long run. Unless people feel the urge to do things and take risks, they do not make much progress in this life. In general, municipal enterprise and national enterprise are mere copyists; they are not originators. They are cuckoos, and we do not want more cuckoos than we need. [Interruption.] I do not know why hon. Members opposite do not like the line of thought I am adopting. We are really amazingly tolerant in listening to hon. Members opposite criticising the capitalist system, and they should be a little more patient when we endeavour to indulge in a denunciation of a quasi-Socialist system. An essential principle of democracy is a willingness to be criticised.
However, to come back to petrol. This is a routine business for many people, and it is obvious that it is a business which can be undertaken better by people with existing organisations and the necessary experience. It is much better, therefore, to leave the business to those who are experts at it. So far as the people who are to receive a lease are concerned, it is obvious that the law should impose upon them the condition suggested in the proviso, that there


should be no special treatment for one class of owners of oil over another, that there must be fair opportunities for the sale of all kinds of necessary supplies. If there is to be one seller it would be undesirable that he should restrict himself to one particular kind of fuel or lubricating oil. A would-be purchaser should have a free choice. The case for the new Clause is one which will commend itself to hon. Members on this side of the Committee but not, I imagine, to hon. Members opposite, because they desire to see one gigantic monopoly. That is what they live for. That would be the destruction of freedom and personal liberty. I do not want to argue the whole case against the Socialist system, but I do want to take such steps as I can to see that it does not creep in unnecessarily into these municipal aerodromes.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. JOHNSTON: This new Clause is as absurd in construction as it is reactionary in principle, and that is saying a very great deal. I trust that the Government will refuse to accept it. As it stands, a municipality could, if they so desired, license one of their officials and thus get completely round the hon. Member's new Clause.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I shall be glad to accept an Amendment to prevent that.

Mr. JOHNSTON: If such a foolish new Clause as this were ever inserted in a Bill, any local authority, which desires to keep control over its own land and the purposes for which it may be used, could quite easily defeat the intention of the hon. Member by licensing one of its officials to conduct the business of supplying fuel and spare parts to aircraft using the aerodrome. But there is something even more foolish about the Clause than that. In the proviso there is a condition that the private contractor to whom the municipality is to be compelled to let its land must stock all proprietary brands of fuel and oil; none are to be excluded. Imagine what that means. It means that the private contractor under the terms of this silly new Clause would be compelled to stock 50 and 60 grades of oil and petrol.
What is the hon. Member's objection to the municipality which has purchased the land, who are the owners of the land,

using it to the best advantage of the citizens? By the new Clause a municipality is to be restricted in the uses to which it might put the land, and they are restrictions which are not to be imposed on private owners of aerodromes who may now supply fuel and spare parts. If a municipality owns the land, then it is to be restricted in the uses to which it may put public property. Such a proposal is wholly inadmissible, and I am certain will not be supported even by hon. Members opposite. It seems to me that the hon. Member has put this new Clause down more as a leg-pulling Motion than anything else, in the hope of getting a. discussion on Socialism. I am sure that he has no hope of carrying it, and if it were carried it would be received with indignation by Conservative municipalities throughout the country who may be actually or potential owners of municipal property. I hope the Government, without further ado, will give this new Clause the dull, sickening thud which it merits.

9.5 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): In so far as the proposed new Clause is designed to prevent any possible mis-use of their powers by local authorities, I have some sympathy with the hon. Member, but I regret that I shall not be able to accept the Clause because I consider it would be a severe hindrance to the development of air transport in this country. The types of business which would appear to be legitimate as subsidiary or ancillary to the maintaining of an aerodrome are the provision of fuel and lubricants, the provision of spare parts and equipment and also the repair of aircraft. Probably cases will arise when the arrangements for the carrying on of a business such as the supplying of petrol and oil may not be possible, at any rate at all seasons of the year, either because of the remoteness of the aerodrome or for some other reason. Therefore, it seems to me essential that in those cases the local authority must be in a position to make provision to fill the gap.
I also suggest that it must not be assumed that local authorities are at all likely to wish to misuse their power in this direction. I will at the same time assure hon. Members who support the new Clause that the Air Ministry will


take any action it can to discourage local authorities from embarking upon undertakings which could perhaps be more suitably left to ordinary commercial enterprise. The present position is that under Section 8 (2) of the 1920 Act a local authority providing an aerodrome has the power to carry on in connection with that aerodrome a subsidiary business which is certified by the Secretary of State as being a business ancillary to the maintaining of an aerodrome. In fairness to the local authorities I would like to emphasise that they have shown no general tendency to carry on such businesses. I am stating facts. In the whole of the 16 years since the passing of the 1920 Act only one certificate has been issued and that was for the sale of petrol and lubricants. However, the effect of this Section of the Act which I have quoted is that once a certificate has been issued in respect of a particular business on the application of a particular local authority, all local authorities maintaining aerodromes are automatically empowered to benefit from that certificate and to transact the business which is covered by it without themselves having to make any individual application.
We have come to the conclusion that perhaps that procedure can be improved upon and a clearer indication given of the policy of the Air Ministry in this connection. Therefore, I shall move on the Report stage an Amendment to Section 8 (2) of the 1920 Act, the effect of which will be that a local authority will not be empowered to carry on subsidiary businesses such as I have indicated except when it has made application to the Secretary of State for an Order in relation to a particular aerodrome. The result of that would be that in future any Order would not be of general application, but would apply only to the particular aerodrome in question. It will be given with reference to a particular aerodrome after full consideration of all the circumstances by the Air Ministry, in consultation with 'the Ministry of Health. I hope in that way the position will be adequately safeguarded and perhaps the wishes of the Mover of this new Clause will be secured without jeopardising or prejudicing the free and unfettered development of air transport.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Do I understand from the Under-Secretary of State that it

is proposed that the Air Ministry shall be able to dictate to local authorities their policy of trading, whether they desire to trade or not? Is it to be left to the Air Ministry to decide as a matter of political policy?

Mr. LYONS: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sir C. MacAndrew): The hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) is quite in order in putting another question and no doubt the right hon. Baronet will answer both.

Mr. LYONS: I understand there are very many municipal aerodromes in this country which have arranged for tenancies in respect of the supply of accessories in those aerodromes. Is it not a fact that the municipal aerodromes which have already let to various tenants the right to sell accessories and to make repairs in those aerodromes have in each case obtained satisfactory results? In those circumstances is there any ground for apprehension as to the letting to tenants of the right to sell in these municipal aerodrome?

Sir P. SASSOON: I would like to make this matter clear to the Committee in case there should be any misapprehension as to what I said. I am not suggesting anything new; what I am suggesting is already contained in Section 8 (2) of the 1920 Act which says:
A local authority providing an aerodrome under this Section shall have power to carry on in connection therewith any subsidiary business certified by the Air Council to be ancillary to the carrying on of an aerodrome.
I am suggesting that when a certificate is given in a particular case it shall have an ad hoc application instead of a general application.

Mr. JOHNSTON: That statement, bad as it is, was prefaced by a, declaration by the right hon. Baronet that he, representing the Air Ministry, would do his utmost to prevent the municipalities from, as he put it, misusing their powers. In this Measure a restriction is to be placed upon the powers which the municipality may have over its own land.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is getting away


from the Clause. From what the Under-Secretary of State said, I gather that the Government will resist the proposed new' Clause and that on the Report stage the Under-Secretary will put forward certain proposals. He mentioned that in giving his reasons for not accepting the Clause. The hon. Member cannot now discuss something which is to be put forward on the Report stage.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I accept your Ruling, but I would draw attention to the fact that, apart from the proposed new Clause which, as I understand, is to come on the Report stage, we had a declaration of policy from the right hon. Baronet to the effect that he and the Air Ministry propose in future to restrict the rights, powers and privileges which municipalities may have over their own land, restrictions which he does not propose to place upon private individuals who own land for aerodromes.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point, but as these matters are to be brought up on the Report stage it would be out of order to discuss them on this new Clause. The reason given by the Under-Secretary for resisting this new Clause was that he intended to propose something else on similar lines at a later stage and what that is going to be we cannot discuss now.

Mr. JOHNSTON: What the right hon. Baronet said was that an order passed now, under Section 8 of the Act of 1920, applied to all aerodromes and what he proposes to do on the Report stage is to alter the law to this extent, that where an order is issued, it is to apply only to one aerodrome and not to all. I do not, however, propose to discuss that point now.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) that on the Report stage he would be in order in discussing whatever proposal is then made, but we have now before us a particular new Clause and we must stick to that new Clause in this discussion.

Mr. JOHNSTON: With great deference, I do not propose to discuss now what the Government intend to do on the Report stage. I accept your Ruling in that

respect. What I am discussing is the statement of policy made by the Minister.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: That is just the point. A statement of the policy, or whatever is to be proposed on the Report stage, cannot be discussed now.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again"? I do so in order to call attention to the serious statement made by the Minister and to give the Committee an opportunity of considering that statement. We are not hidebound in the rules and customs of the House of Commons, and as we have not an opportunity of discussing this question in an orderly manner on the new Clause which is now before the Committee, we ought to allow the Minister time to consider the matter further and to give us some clearer elucidation of what he means than we have had up to the present. I think it is the custom when a Minister declares a matter of policy that the Committee or the House should immediately ask for an opportunity for consideration of the matter and also for the right to express their view upon it. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the Air Ministry, in future, is to take action contrary to that which it has been their duty to take in the past. We are told that between now and the Report' stage we are to consider the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, which is simply to the effect that the local, authorities are good enough when you want a piece of public work done, but only just so far as the policy of the right hon. Gentleman and the Air Ministry allow them to do that work. That is the most extraordinary statement I have ever heard from a Minister.
I want to point out to the Committee why we ought to have more time before we proceed further with this Bill. I understand that the establishment of municipal aerodromes is necessary because private enterprise has failed to give us the aerodromes which are required. Whatever my views may be about military aviation, and I hold strong views on that subject, I hope I have enough intelligence to support whole-heartedly civil aviation. I hope to see considerable


development in that respect but how are you to develop it without aerodromes, and how are you to get your aerodromes without public assistance from the local authorities, and how can you expect those authorities to accede enthusiastically to your request and come to the nation's help in this matter, if you are to confine them in this ludicrous manner? Who are the Air Ministry, I should like to know, that they should say to the local authorities "We shall use you as far as we think right; we shall use your powers of taking over land and providing accommodation, but when it comes to a question of supplying a few quarts of oil or a few gallons of petrol or giving facilities for the repair of aeroplanes, you are not to be considered in the matter unless their high-and-mightinesses of the Air Ministry give you permission "? Do hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite think that the corporations of Manchester and Liverpool or the London County Council or even the Poplar Borough Council will allow themselves to be dealt with in that manner?
I recommend hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to read the article on Joseph Chamberlain which appeared in the "Observer" of Sunday last, and to learn what one of their own greatest men did in matters of this kind. Always, when private enterprise is unable to do a job the State or the municipality has to take it in hand. The railway stations were built by private enterprise—miles away from where the people live in many parts of the country—and hon. Members opposite apparently want the aerodromes to be built in the same manner. They talk about wanting the young people of the nation to become air-minded. What they are actually trying to do is to suffocate the enthusiasm of the young people with red tape and with a lot of hindrances. I thought hon. Members opposite would be ashamed to allow themselves to be led in a matter of this kind by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), whom I admire for the tenacity with which he attempts to stop progress in the House of Commons. I am surprised that they should line up behind him, but when the right hon. Baronet, who is at the head of a great Ministry, concerned with the great new industry, falls into the trap laid for him

by the hon. Member—well, I am ashamed of him. I have always said that he was a good Air Minister because he was enthusiastic and devoted to aviation and gave no end of time, energy and enthusiasm to it. To-night he has succumbed, not to the guile or the wiles, but to the stupidity of the hon. Member for South Croydon who is like Mrs. Partington trying to sweep back the waves with a broom.
I hope that the Committee will agree to a Motion to report Progress as a protest against the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman and will inform him by their vote that they do not intend to allow him to bring in any proposition such as he has laid down to-night. Either the municipalities can be trusted to get the land and put up the aerodromes and administer them or they cannot. If you cannot trust them, do not allow them to do the job at all. But when Parliament has said that they may do it, I think it would be the height of absurdity for this Committee to give one minute's consideration to the ridiculous suggestion of the right hon. Baronet.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I gather that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to move to report Progress. As I have tried to explain to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston), the policy which it has been suggested will be brought forward on the Report stage does not concern us now. The question before us now is the new Clause which I understand the Government intend to resist. If there were a necessity to discuss that policy now, I would accept a Motion to report Progress, but as the matter does not come on until the Report stage, I do not propose to accept such a Motion on this occasion.

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose—

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: May I ask leave to withdraw the Clause?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: rose—

Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I am putting the Question.

Mr. LANSBURY: I rose before you put the Question. I asked that I might move


to report Progress, and I moved it. I made a speech which I thought had something to do with that Motion, giving reasons why it should be carried. Do I understand that, having allowed me to move it, you can then at the end of my speech say that you practically rule it out of order, and put the original Question? I am not competent at the moment to be able to say what the position is but I can say I have never seen a situation such as that either in the Committee or the House before.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I think my position is perfectly clear. Under Standing Order 22 I have various options, and the option that I have exercised is that, as this matter will come up on the Report stage, I am not accepting the Motion to report Progress.

Mr. LANSBURY: But you really had accepted it by allowing one to move it. I thought you had accepted my Motion and had allowed me to make my speech in support of it, and that by so doing you had allowed me to move it. I thought that your option was either to allow a discussion or put the question forthwith.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I perhaps misled the right hon. Gentleman by my courtesy in allowing him to complete his speech.

Sir RONALD ROSS: How would it be possible for you to know what the right hon. Gentleman was going to say before he said it? Would it have been fair to deprive the Committee of the pleasure of listening to him?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has asked leave to withdraw the Clause?

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Yes.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Wages and conditions of employment of persons employed.)

(1) The wages paid by any persons in receipt of subsidy under this Act to persons employed by them in connection with the carriage by air of passengers or goods, and the conditions of employment of persons so employed, shall, unless agreed upon by the employer and by organisations representative of the persons employed, or by a joint industrial council representing them, not be less favourable to the persons employed than the wages which would be payable and the conditions which would have to be observed under a contract which complied with

the requirements of any resolution of the House of Commons for the time being in force applicable to contracts of Government Departments, and if any dispute arises as to what wages ought to be paid, or what conditions ought to be observed in accordance with this section, it shall, if not otherwise disposed of, be referred by the Secretary of State to the industrial court for settlement.

(2) Where any matter is referred to the industrial court under this section the court, in arriving at its decision, shall have regard to any determination that may be brought to its notice relating to the wages or conditions of service of persons employed in a capacity similar to that of the persons to whom the reference relates, being a determination contained in a decision of a. joint industrial council, conciliation board, or other similar body, or in an agreement between organisations representative of employers and workpeople.

(3) Where any award has been made by the industrial court upon a dispute referred to that court under this section then, as from the date of the award or from such later date as the court may direct, it shall be an implied term of the contract between the employer and workers to whom the award applies that the rate of wages to be paid or the conditions of employment to be observed under the contract shall, until varied in accordance with the provisions of this section, be in accordance with the award.—[Mr. Hardie.]

Brought up, and read a First time.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. HARDIE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
If the Government would give some indication of what their attitude is to this Clause it might save time. The Clause is in three sections. The first part relates to wages, the second part refers to industrial courts, and the third part deals with awards. Wherever an award is given by the industrial court a guarantee is given to the workers that the award shall comply with resolutions that have gone through the House from time to time. If the Under-Secretary of State will give some indication whether he is likely or not to accept this Clause I will resume my seat.

9.30 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON: The Clause proposed is identical, except for necessary verbal modifications, with Section 23 of the recently passed Sugar Industry (Reorganisation) Act, and there is no objection on the part of the Government to the insertion of this Clause in the Bill. It has always been our practice, in subsidy agreements, to include contract conditions


with regard to the payment of fair wages, not only to the workpeople of the company employed in this country, but also to those employed abroad. If this Clause is accepted and passed into law, future subsidy agreements will contain a condition based on this Clause, but will also provide for the payment of fair wages to workpeople employed by the subsidised company oversea.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(Illumination of new buildings.)

The Secretary of State may require the owner of any building or structure within one mile of an aerodrome and whose summit is more than fifty feet above the mean level of such aerodrome and the plans for the erection of which shall have been approved by the local authority after those for the aerodrome, to exhibit during such hours as he shall prescribe adequate warning lights to indicate to airmen the presence of such building or structure.—[Mr. Simmonds.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. SIMMONDS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It deals with the illumination of obstacles around aerodromes. In the past year night flying has been increasing in this country, and it has been found that there are certain serious obstacles to the safety of flying at night. We do not submit that this Clause covers all that is required, but we have endeavoured as far as possible to cover the future. If the Committee passes this Clause it will mean that after an aerodrome has been provided by a local authority and licensed by the Air Ministry any building erected within a mile from the extremities of that aerodrome would, if the Secretary of State felt it desirable, have to carry a light if that structure were higher than 50 feet above the mean level of the aerodrome, and that light would be maintained during such hours as the Secretary of State would direct at the expense of the owner of that structure.
We submit that this would be a fair charge on the owners of these high structures placed near a landing ground, which in the future will be the communal land-

ing ground of those who legitimately travel by air. We feel that the time has come when it is reasonable for this Committee to say that if any person is minded to erect a high structure within this narrow distance of an aerodrome, it is legitimate that, if the Secretary of State deems it right, he should also be required to illuminate it. That is desirable for the sake not only of those who are flying, but also of those who may live in the vicinity of the structure. [An HON. MEMBER: "And in it!"] I am not troubling so much about those who live in it as about those who live around it, because if an aircraft flies into a high structure, it will probably come down into some other building and set it on fire.
I mentioned that this is possibly a narrow Clause. There is the vast problem of illuminating those buildings which are at the moment above this height and within a mile of the aerodrome, but we understand that this matter has engaged the attention of the Air Ministry for some three years past and that still they have not found a solution, and we hesitate to tackle a problem which is clearly so formidable; but if my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State should be able to tell us that he could, on the Report stage, introduce a new Clause which would both provide at the public expense, where he so directs, for the illumination of those high buildings near aerodromes that exist to-day, as well as make provision for new buildings which might be erected, I feel sure that my hon. Friends and myself would be much indebted to him.

9.38 p.m.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I do not want to raise any controversial issue, but I am seriously concerned about this Clause if it is to be accepted without redrafting or without some serious consideration. As I understand the Clause, only those buildings which are erected subsequent to the opening of a new aerodrome will be governed by its provisions. May I suggest that in that case there is the danger of misleading the aircraft itself? If you have some structures with lights on and other structures without them, the tendency may be to avoid those with lights on, and the aircraft may run the danger of colliding with a structure that is in darkness. I suggest, therefore, that the Clause requires consideration.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. ACLAND: I oppose this new Clause. I would not necessarily be opposed to the principle of illumination if it were brought forward in some other form, but in this form I think it must he opposed. I know an aerodrome in North Devon which has some rising ground immediately behind it. No doubt it would be very convenient for that aerodrome if it could get lights placed on the top of that rising ground, which is more than 50 feet high, and if a man put up a two-storey building on top of that ground he might be required at his own cost to put a light on top of it. The radius of a mile is very wide. We hope that aerodromes will be established as near as possible outside the growing fringes of existing towns, and a mile will very likely take you right into the centre of the town or city outside which an aerodrome is to be established. The height of 50 feet is not a great height. A five-storey building with a chimney on top of it easily comes to 50 feet, quite apart from any question of a rise in the ground, and really, is the owner or builder of some new building suddenly to find himself burdened with the cost of putting up and maintaining an adequate warning light?
Very often aerodromes are established out in the country where there is no electrical or gas power, and if a man desires to build a factory there or to put up a high building, is he to be responsible for bringing electricity to his site, at very great cost to himself, or for establishing some oil-burning lamp? It seems to me that if structures round aerodromes are to be illuminated, it should be done by the aerodrome authorities, and that the burden should not be put upon private individuals who may want to develop their land by putting upon it a five-storey house.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. MAXWELL FYFE: As one of those responsible for this Clause, may I deal with the very helpful suggestion put by the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague). What seemed to worry the hon. Member was that a new building might be lighted, but that there might be some old building which would cause an obstruction. May I draw his attention to the wording of the Clause and point out to him that the governing words, are permissive? It says that "the

Secretary of State may require," and so on.

Mr. MONTAGUE: May I draw the lion. and learned Member's attention to the words later in the Clause:
approved by the local authority after those for the aerodrome"?
That is the point.

Mr. FYFE: The first point that I am suggesting to the hon. Member is that the whole Clause is permissive and depends on the Secretary of State exercising his power. If he exercises his power, then, of course, it applies, and only to those buildings, but that gives the Secretary of State the opportunity of judging whether he will apply the Clause, and in considering whether or not he will apply it he would consider the danger referred to by the hon. Member. There are, as nobody knows better than the hon. Member, municipal aerodromes where at the present moment this danger does not appear but in our submission this Clause would be a, very helpful and inexpensive adjunct to the other proposals in the Bill. I confess that I cannot see the same reasonableness in the objection put forward by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland). The hon. Member seems to think that if buildings of a considerable size are put up within a mile of an aerodrome it is a serious disadvantage to require lights to be put on them. I would ask the hon. Member to consider what percentage it would add to the cost of a new building which was more than 50 feet high to start with—

Mr. ACLAND: A person could not, under this new Clause, build a two-storey cottage on top of a 30-foot rise within a mile of an aerodrome.

Mr. FYFE: That is possible, although it is at the moment difficult to envisage that possibility in any aerodrome that springs to my mind. No doubt the hon. Member has one in his mind.

Mr. ACLAND: Croydon.

Mr. FYFE: Even accepting the hon. Member's suggestion of one possibility, I still think that it is not a great addition to ask people to make as their contribution to the assistance of flying when they are putting up new buildings. In


view of the encouragement that is being given to local authorities and others to put up new aerodromes and of the tremendous expenditure that is being incurred, not for this year but for the next 20 years, on the erection of aerodromes, I suggest that the contribution for which we are asking in this new Clause is only a very slight and proper assistance which aviation is entitled to ask.

9.48 p.m.

Captain BALFOUR: I also put my name to this new Clause, but I am not at all sure that it is an entirely desirable Clause in the way in which it is drafted. Nevertheless the intention which we wish to put forward is clear. One could go on arguing for a long time from the particular to the general, taking specific instances such as the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) did, and arguing the merits or demerits of the wording of the Clause, but that will not get the Committee very far. I think that it would satisfy the Members who have put down this Clause if the Government could give some indication that they accept the principle of illuminating buildings which are in proximity to aerodromes and dangerous to flying. We have the example of the gasometer next door to Heston Airport, which is a menace to flying and concerning which there have been questions in the House. I do not wish to be gloomy, but I prophesy that, unless something is done very soon, we shall run the grave risk of an accident. We wish to prevent a repetition of this sort of thing being erected round new aerodromes. If the Under-Secretary would indicate that the Government accept in principle the objective of this new Clause but that because of administrative difficulties they cannot accept it in its present form and will endeavour to interpret it in a way more satisfactory to the Government, I am sure that my hon. Friends whose names are attached to the Clause will consider that their aim is fulfilled.

9.50 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON: I can readily give the promise for which my hon. and gallant Friend has asked, and the assurance that we do accept in principle the intention of this new Clause. With the rapid development of air transport it is very necessary in the interest of safety to

provide that obstructions in the neighbourhood of aerodromes should be illuminated. This particular Clause is not quite the best way of dealing with an admitted problem, which has been occupying our attention for a long time. The objection of the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) was a most pertinent one. If you are to light new buildings what about the old buildings? That is one of the many facets of difficulty in this problem. I cannot accept this Clause but I will undertake to do my best to consider the matter and if possible to bring forward something that might be a solution of this problem on the Report stage.
Apart from buildings, there are other obstructions such as the gasometer at Heston. My hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) has frequently tackled me on this particular subject. I am happy to say, however, that the technical problems to which I referred when the question was last raised have now been solved, but there are certain legal difficulties that are now holding us up though I am hopeful that an early solution of these will be found.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Will my right hon. Friend in the new Clause which he proposes cover those structures which are at present in existence or which were erected before the aerodromes? That is an equally important problem.

Sir F. ACLAND: I hope that the Under-Secretary will think a good deal before he brings forward anything that will carry out the intention of this Clause. The foundation of aerodromes near houses is considered by the ordinary householder as the most appalling nuisance and an affliction, because of the noise, which cannot possibly be escaped, and to have the liability put upon not only new buildings but existing buildings, as this Clause proposes, because an aerodrome has been put within a mile of the buildings, is carrying things a little far from the point of view of the ordinary subject of the Crown. I hope, therefore, that there will be a good deal of thought before the Government legislate on these lines.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: I hope that the Minister will not find himself able to agree to the principle of this Clause. The


liability for illuminating areas within a mile of an aerodrome should be met by the aerodrome itself and not by the private citizen. The result of this infliction, if it became law, would be that within a mile of many aerodromes all the land would be neutralised, for owners would not accept the permanent liability of illuminating the buildings which, independently of the aerodrome, might have been erected. The area within a mile of an aerodrome is such a large area that the obligation would create both injustice and hardship on a very large number of residents. Aerodromes are supposed to exist for the convenience of the general public, and if they cannot maintain themselves financially, which we suppose they cannot, it is clearly a liability of the taxpayers to assist them, but that individual citizens should be penalised simply because they happen to be residing within a mile of the aerodrome would be a great hardship. I hope the Minister will reconsider the position.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. PERKINS: I welcome the assurance which the Minister has given that the Government propose to accept the principle of this Clause, but I sincerely hope they will not adopt the figure of 50 feet which is mentioned in it. If they do it will mean that the whole of their magnificent aerodrome at Croydon will have to be covered with lights, because that particular aerodrome has a great dip in it, and the difference in level between the highest point and the lowest point is more than 50 feet. Further, I do press the Minister for a more definite and specific assurance about the large gasholder at Heston. For six years, in season and out of season, I have been trying in this House to get a light put on that gas-holder. Again and again I have been put off by evasive answers from the Ministry. Two months ago we got an assurance that the matter was going to be seriously tackled, and that we should have a light there almost at once. Now we are told that the technical difficulties have been overcome, but the Minister did not say what those technical difficulties were. I was in charge of the erection of that monstrosity, I regret to say—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think a reference to the question of a light on that gas-holder at Heston is permissible,

but whether this Clause is accepted or rejected does not concern the erection of that gas-holder.

Mr. PERKINS: I hope I may ask for a definite assurance that. before we reach the Report stage there will be a light on that gas-holder.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. KELLY: I hope the Under-Secretary will think seriously before committing himself to granting what is asked for in this Clause, and will consult with the municipal authorities. Some municipalities have large hospitals in the vicinity of existing aerodromes, and if they are to lie asked to light up those buildings, and other buildings belonging to them which are in the neighbourhood, it will be a serious matter for them. The right hon. Gentleman ought also to consider whether the instructions should be given to those who are engaged on the planning of new areas and who are responsible for approving applications for buildings to be erected there.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. SIMMONDS: I feel there has been a certain amount of misunderstanding in the minds of hon. Members opposite, in that they have suggested that the owners of existing buildings above 50 feet in height and within a mile of an aerodrome are to be made liable for illuminating those buildings. We have made no such proposals. My hon. Friends who are associated with me in proposing this Clause feel definitely that that is an obligation to be put either upon the Government or upon the owner of the aerodrome. What we are anxious about is the future, because we do not want the very unsatisfactory Situation which has grown up in the past few years to be perpetuated. In view of the assurance which my right hon. Friend has given us that he will go carefully into this matter, I would beg leave of the Committee to withdraw the Clause.

Mr. JOHNSTON: rose—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman speaks, the Clause cannot be withdrawn.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I shall not detain the Committee. All I wish to do is to ask the right hon. Gentleman not to be


in too great a hurry to accept a Clause of this kind. He has committed himself to considering the question between now and the Report stage, but in view of the new difficulties which have been pointed out and the disadvantages which the owners of houses already in existence may suffer if they are compelled to light their houses—[Interruption.] Well, these are possibilities. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should consider the case of the owner of a house who may go away on holiday. Is he to be compelled to light that house during the time he is on holiday? The right hon. Gentleman should not be in too great a hurry to impose such a burden on the public.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. GARRO JONES: Before this Clause is either withdrawn or voted upon I think it would be useful to have some clarification of the principle which the Government have promised to consider. In view of the criticisms that the Government have not been ready enough to meet the views of their critics it would be churlish of us to complain of their attitude in promising to consider the principle involved in this new Clause, but what is the principle which they are going to consider? At least four principles are enunciated in the Clause. The first is that there should be lights on buildings of a certain elevation in comparison with the aerodrome. The second is that those lights should be paid for by the owners of those buildings. The third is that this obligation should not apply to buildings erected before the plans for the aerodrome were passed. The fourth is that it should only apply to buildings which are 50 feet or more above the mean level of the aerodrome. We shall find that some of these are false principles. The figure of 50 feet bears no relation to the danger which an obstacle may be to a machine about to land at an aerodrome. A building of 50 feet on the edge of an aerodrome may be a serious obstacle, but a mile away it may be no obstacle at all. Therefore, if the Government are going to accept a principle in which 50 feet is stipulated we find ourselves with a Clause which is ill-considered and likely to lead to much difficulty in, administration. I should like to be assured that the Government will not accept the principle of a site elevation, but that the tangent elevation from the aerodrome shall govern

the height of buildings which must have lights upon them. Again, I should like a clear assurance that the owner of the building shall not be required to pay for the light. That is an obligation which should fall upon the aerodrome.
My third and last point is that the same regulation which applies to buildings put up after the plans for the aerodrome were passed shall apply to buildings which existed previously, because it is going to be small consolation to a pilot who flies into a house within a mile from an aerodrome to know that it was in existence before the aerodrome was established and therefore was not obliged to have a light on it. I should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman means when he says that he accepts the principle of the Clause. The only principle which is valid is that buildings which constitute a real danger to a pilot landing at an aerodrome should be required to have a light placed upon them, and that that light should be paid for by the aviation authorities.

Mr. MAXWELL FYFE: Might I ask the hon. Gentleman if he will deal with the fifth principle which inevitably follows, that any requirement in respect of these lights is subject to the discretion of the Secretary of State, who will then be able to deal with all the problems involved?

10.6 p.m.

Sir JOHN HASLAM: It is very seldom that I speak upon this subject but I want, as a supporter of the Government in power, to express my point of view against any proposal in the direction enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air. Every objection to it seems to have come from the Opposition, and it is the first time in my public career that I have known them to be the defenders of private property. If these aerodromes are erected and are a source of danger to the people who use them, surely those people ought to provide the protection. I can conceive of land, not more than half a mile from the aerodrome, happening to be 50 feet above the mean level of the aerodrome, being useless land for building purposes for the simple reason that it does happen to have an elevation of 50 feet above the mean level of the aerodrome. Is it right to penalise the owner of that land or property because someone has come


along and erected an aerodrome in that particular place?
I thought it had always been the rule in the past that wherever anybody erected anything that was a public danger or that might lead to trouble in the future, it was up to those people to provide the danger signals and the illumination necessary to prevent disaster. If a municipality or an individual is wealthy enough to purchase or to erect an aerodrome, surely they might go forward and guard any property that might cause trouble in the future in the use of that aerodrome. I add my voice in order to say that there are Members on this side of the Committee who object to proposals for the Ministry which might easily develop, and that we hope they will be carefully considered with a view to alteration upon the Report stage. We object to people being penalised because they happen to own property, and to their having to go to considerable expense because an aerodrome has been erected in their midst.

10.8 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON: Every speech to which I have listened against the proposal has shown that I was very wise when I said that this was a very difficult problem and needed very grave consideration. It is obvious that I could not get up now and do what I was asked to do, which is completely to elucidate the position that will be set up. I was asked about three particular points. Without committing myself in any way, I would say only that the points appear to me a very likely course for us to adopt, and I would say at once that it would definitely be our policy that no charge should fall upon the owner of the property for putting up the illumination. It would certainly apply to buildings which had been erected before as much as to buildings which had been erected since the establishment of an aerodrome, according to the height and the danger that they constituted to aircraft. I think that the Committee would not expect me to add any more, and I would ask them to consider carefully the proposal before they reject it.

10.9 p.m.

Sir DAVID REID: The right hon. Gentleman seems to consider that the Air Ministry has a right to go on to anybody's property and to erect any light

which may be necessary to enable an aerodrome to work, but surely the position is that if anybody likes to have an aerodrome, they must lay out a sufficient area to make that aerodrome safe. There cannot, according to any ordinary principle, be any right to the Air Ministry to go upon private property and to put up bright lights which may interfere with the amenities of people, in order to safeguard an aerodrome. The remedy is to make the aerodrome big enough. I would not agree for a moment that the Ministry can go about and erect lights anywhere they like.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Provisions with respect to Compulsory Purchase Orders.)

10.11 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 30, line 23, after "allotment," to insert:
or which belongs to a local authority within the meaning of the Local Loans Act, 1875, or is held by any statutory undertakers for the purposes of their undertaking.
The purpose of this Amendment is to meet representations that have been made that the provision with respect to statutory undertakings should be brought into line with other Statutes. Advantage has been taken of the opportunity to give a definition to statutory undertakers.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I take it that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not only specifying what he means by statutory undertakers but that he is eliminating paragraph 2 on page 30 of the Schedule. The paragraph says:
The Secretary of State shall not confirm a compulsory purchase order authorising the purchase of any land which belongs to any local authority within the meaning of the Local Loans Act, 1875, or to any statutory undertakers, unless the authority or undertakers, as the case may be, consent.
The owners of statutory undertakings must give their consent. I take it that that is the principle of the Bill as it now stands, and that what the hon. and learned Gentleman is doing is taking away the necessity to secure the assent or consent of the undertakers.

10.14 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No, there was a certain amount of discussion going on and the right hon. Gentleman cannot quite have followed what I said. Perhaps I made my explanation too brief. In the Bill as it stands, the prohibition of the purchase of land belonging to local authorities and statutory undertakings is contained in paragraph 2, and is qualified by the proviso, which appears at the top of page 31, that the consent is not to be unreasonably withheld. By the Amendment, the prohibition is taken out of paragraph 2 and is put back to line 23, in paragraph 1. It is there made absolute, so that there shall not be a purchase of such land, and the proviso will come out. The Amendment is, therefore, more favourable to local authorities and statutory undertakers than the original Bill. The only other point to which I think it is necessary to call attention is that we have inserted a definition of "statutory undertakers" in line with the other definitions.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Can the Attorney-General say who it is that will decide what are archaeological remains?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am afraid I cannot say straight off whether there is some definition, perhaps, in some other Bill, but I will look into the matter, and, if it can be cleared up, I will see that it is cleared up.

Mr. MONTAGUE: It occurs to me that there might be some opportunity for people who desire to prevent the development of an aerodrome to use this provision for the purpose.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am much obliged.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 30, leave out line 27, and insert:
2. In this Part of this Schedule—

In line 35, leave out "and."

In line 38, at the end, insert:
and
(d) the expression 'statutory undertakers' means any persons authorised by any enactment or statutory order to construct work, or carry on any railway, canal, inland navigation, dock, harbour, tramway, gas, electricity, water, or other public undertaking.

In line 39, leave out paragraph 2.—[The Attorney-General.]

Schedule as amended, agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to Policies of Insurance, Securities and Deposits.)

10.18 p.m.

Mr. HARDIE: I beg to move, in page 32, line 28, after "thereby," to insert:
or renders the policy invalid in the event of it having been issued upon any false representation.

Mr. JOHNSTON: May we have an explanation from the Government?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think it is for the Mover of the Amendment to give an explanation.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I take it that what is intended here is to lay down another ground on which a policy will not be rendered invalid. The Amendment provides that, where a policy has been issued, it shall not later be rendered invalid on the ground that the policy or any part of the proposal form may have been filled up on grounds of false representation, and that, once a policy of insurance has been issued by an insurance company, it shall be valid and compensation shall be payable in the event of any accident under the terms of the policy, and that it shall not be at the option of the insurance company to declare later that they decline to pay on the ground that the policy was secured by misrepresentation. The Attorney-General will probably remember that, in the famous Los Angeles fire, the American fire insurance companies succeeded in evading payment of any claims whatsoever under just such a clause as my hon. Friend is seeking to obviate here and the whole onus of meeting the claims fell upon fire insurance companies in London, to the extent of about £4,000,000, because they did not choose to avail themselves of the stipulation which my hon. Friends seeks by this Amendment to eliminate. I hope I have made the point clear to the Attorney-General. If I have not, he may assist me in the matter. At any rate, we ought to hear from the Government a little more as to their attitude to the whole question of assurance, particularly on third-party risks, covered by the Bill.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. GARRO JONES: I should really like to add my commendation of the perspicacity of my hon. Friend in proposing the Amendment. The absence of some such provision in insurance covering motor legislation has led to endless hardship. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that, in the parallel circumstances of aviation, we shall not perpetuate those defects in the law. If, in a proposal for a policy, the insurer has omitted some relevant fact, the insurance company may, nevertheless, accept the policy and accept premiums for a long period of years, and the whole world is given to understand that the risk is covered, but when finally a claim is made it is too late to rectify the matter and the insurance company evades all liability. A constituent of mine wrote to me only the other day that his car had been run into and seriously damaged and, because the person involved in the accident had omitted some particular in his proposal, which did not seem to be very important, he himself had to pay for the damage to his own car, although the fault was not his. We have complained that many of the proposals of this Bill have been ill-thought out. Here is an opportunity to improve the general drafting of the Bill and to give us in this new legislation the benefit of the lessons of experience we have learnt in the parallel motor industry. I hope the Attorney-General will at least agree to accept the principle of the Amendment.

10.23 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am obliged to the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) for assisting me in understanding the purport of the Amendment. The purpose, as I understand it, is that in no circumstances is misrepresentation to be a defence. The hon. Member who has just spoken seemed to me to have somewhat overlooked the general provisions of the Schedule. Paragraph 2 (2) provides that the insurer shall be liable, although he may be entitled to avoid or cancel the policy according to its terms. That is to be read in connection with paragraph 2 (3), which relieves him from liability if he obtains a. certificate that the ground on which he was entitled to avoid it was non-disclosure of a material fact or a representation of fact which was

false in some material particular. I agree that this is a very difficult question. The general scheme of the Road Traffic Act was that people should insure and people who were damaged should, at any rate, have the benefit, not certain in all cases but in most cases, that the person they sued would have a valid policy of insurance. Some incursion has been made into the contractural rights of the insurance company by paragraph (ii) and paragraph (iii). It has been argued that it is going too far to say that in no circumstances could the insurance company escape liability, however grave and material the misrepresentation with which the policy was obtained. For those reasons I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment, bearing in mind that in the other parts of the Schedule some incursion has been made into the contractural rights of the insurer in favour of the insured person.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. HARDIE: As the Mover of the Amendment, I was trying to obtain an advantage—it might be called a mean advantage—but the speed with which the Deputy-Chairman was getting through the small Amendments to the Bill led me to believe that, if he continued, I should lose my chance. There was hesitation in order to give some one time to get in. The reason we wish to put in these words here is that certain insurance companies make difficulties. If hon. Members will cast their minds back to the discussion which took place on Clause 12 they will remember that we were trying to get some correction of the Clause where the size of the aeroplane was the measure of the amount of damage, or insurance or compensation to be paid. We are trying to get this Amendment accepted so that there can be no way out for any one. Why should anyone who, first of all, had had the inconvenience of damage being done and had experienced the difficulties following upon a claim being made, with all the necessary expense, have something further imposed upon him? Why should he not be assured of getting paid if his case were proved? Why should there be any conditions which make it impossible to obtain justice?
I hoped that the sense of justice of the Attorney-General, based upon his experience of law and of the courts, would have enabled him to see the real necessity


of accepting the Amendment. I may be making a mistake here, but perhaps he is like other legal gentlemen. When it comes to the question of drafting a Bill, the object seems to be not to keep people out of the law courts, but rather to push them in. Whenever the legal gentlemen have charge of something which they can put into plain language so that the ordinary layman can understand it, they do not seem to do so, because they would be doing themselves out of a job. I do not want to make a direct accusation of that kind, but from what the Attorney-General has said on this Amendment, it would seem that Clause 12 was related to this matter. I thought it was a question of stupidity on the part of those who drafted Clause 12, but I believe that this is something worse than stupidity. I am sorry that the Attorney-General cannot see his way to accept the Amendment. It is simply a question of trying to make the position really secure, and it would be an effective thing if, in dealing with people handing out insurance, the Government would see to it that the sort of thing of which we complain could not be done.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: My object in rising is to see whether I can remove some of the doubts that have been expressed on the other side of the Committee. The general provisions of the Schedule bear a distinct family resemblance to Section 10 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, where this House, in common with the other branch of the Legislature tried to find a method of avoiding the difficulty which a good many of us felt with regard to the question of compulsory insurance. That system, as indicated in this Schedule, has only been running under the Road Traffic Act, 1934, for a comparatively short space of time, but I am bound to confess as a result of my own experience of it, and the very stringent rules which are provided in that Section, and in this Schedule, if it becomes law, the rights of insurance companies have been severely restricted. So far as my personal experience goes, and I give it to the House for what it is worth, the safeguard in that Section appears to be working extremely well.
In these circumstances it would be a very great pity if by passing this Amendment we were to put into this branch of the law, dealing with aviation and

compulsory insurance in aviation, a totally new principle. The only effect of it would be that we should then be invited to consider the matter afresh in regard to the compulsory insurance for motor vehicles, and there would be no real opportunity of testing and seeing whether what this House so recently as 1934 thought was sufficient has really proved by actual experience to be satisfactory. I hope the Committee will not think that I am putting the legal point of view too much in regard to this particular problem. It is not an easy problem to solve. The effect of passing such an Amendment would indubitably be to increase to a very considerable extent, in all probability, the premiums that would be charged by particular insurance companies, which might have a very deleterious effect upon the development of an industry which we all want to see developed as quickly as possible. In these circumstances I am glad to find that for the moment, at all events, the Government are not prepared to accept the Amendment.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. PRITT: This matter may appear complicated, but when one looks at it it is a simple question of principle. If we begin to interfere by legislation with the right of the insurer to contract out of paying when a loss arises, the matter is quite simple. You pay your money and yet because you fail to mention the existence of some lorry or hangar, the insurance company is absolutely entitled to refuse payment. In due course, in practice, that is discovered to be, like almost everything else in capitalism, so fatal to the ordinary working of everyday life that the capitalists have to pass Acts of Parliament to stop it working out its natural course. When you start to do that, the natural desire of the ordinary citizen, who is not an insurance company, is that the certificate of insurance shall convey to the executors of the deceased or the injured person, as the case may he, some real assurance that the people who have killed him or have injured him will be able to pay what they owe as a result of having killed or injured him.
The thing has worked very imperfectly in the past. There has been a certain amount of legislation about it. I have no doubt that powerful interests have


conveyed their views to successive Governments and Ministers about it, as a result of which hundreds if not thousands of people in this country—more in relation to motor cars than in relation to aeroplanes—are living with broken legs, on parish money, instead of having proper compensation for the accident, because of legislation having compromised between the two systems. One is the uncontrolled system of letting the insurance company get out freely and the other the system of legislating so that once you have paid your premium and got a policy, procured a certificate of insurance, the company must stand by that, however wrongfully you may have treated them in the course of making the contract. They can then turn to you. If they do not like to carry on business on those terms there are two ways out. One is to raise premiums—that is the natural way under the capitalist system —and the other, the more sensible way, is to realise that capitalism has failed in this matter as in everything else. The best thing we can do here is to extend as far as possible the opportunities of getting the poor fellow who is injured some money, and I ask the Committee to pass the Amendment simply because it is one small step forward, and a not unreasonable step, from the narrow capitalist point of view.

10.36 p.m.

Captain BALFOUR: I hope the Committee will not accept the Amendment. The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) is not up-to-date in his information. He has said that powerful interests have no doubt made representations to the Government as, to the effect of the working of compulsory insurance. Actually there is a committee appointed by the President of the Board of Trade sitting under the chairmanship of Sir Felix Cassel, with Mr. W. R. Smith, who was Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade in the Labour Government, an hon. Member of the Liberal party, two Members representing the Government side and others representing various insurance interests, who have heard evidence from industries, the motor industry and the Air Ministry, and also from the mining industry, as well as from other forms of compulsory industrial insurance. Their terms of reference are to see whether the present

law is sufficient or not. Actually since the passing of the 1934 Act there have been extraordinarily few cases of hardship; the loophole has been nearly closed. The committee, as I know, is pursuing its task with considerable speed, taking a great deal of trouble in the matter, and I suggest that it would not be wise to press the Amendment at this stage in view of the fact that when the Committee presents its report the Government will be able to prepare a Bill modifying the whole details of the principle of compulsory insurance in aviation and in motor traffic and industrial insurance. If we pass the Amendment it might prejudice a consideration of the committee's report, perhaps in a very unwise manner.

10.39 p.m.

Major HILLS: The Amendment deals with a matter on which there is a good deal of opinion. I take it that its object is to protect the third party in the same way as the Act of 1934 was designed to ensure that the unfortunate passenger damaged by a, motor car should not lose his benefit because of some misrepresentation in the declaration of policy. That is a legitimate object to aim at, but I would point out to the Mover of the Amendment and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) that whatever one may wish to do in that direction—and I think all our sympathies would move us to act in that direction—this Amendment is impossible. It would give the benefit to any person insured under a policy in spite of the fact that the policy had been issued on false representations. For instance, I might own an aeroplane and get an insurance by false representation, and if the aeroplane or I were damaged I could claim the benefit of an insurance that I had obtained by fraud. I think I can convince the Mover and all those who have supported the principle, with which we all have a very great deal of sympathy, that the Amendment goes much too far. It would enable a man to profit by his own misrepresentation, and I am sure the Mover does not intend that. Moreover, I appreciate what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour) said. I do not think this is an Amendment which could by any stretch of sympathy be added to the Bill.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. BEVAN: The discussion which is now taking place is reminiscent of that which we had on Part III of the Bill. There have been two types of argument. The first is that we ought not to put any greater disabilities upon insurance companies because if we did so, the effect would be to raise the premiums. All the while the argument is that the risks should be carried by the poor innocent people on the earth and that they should expose themselves to the risk of injury or loss of life in order to promote aviation. That argument was used before and it was then blown sky high. Consequently, some improvements were made in Part III of the Bill, and I think the Attorney-General will remember the very happy evening we spent on this matter. The other argument is the very much more subtle one put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour), who realised that he could not bring out the first argument again this evening, although he desires the same thing. He wishes to keep down premiums in order to promote aviation.
The hon. and gallant Member suggested that we ought not to insist upon this principle because there is a Committee sitting. But the principle we are asked to consider is a perfectly simple one which does not require very much investigation. What is it? Let us suppose that a man is walking across a field and an aeroplane falls on top of him and he is killed. His widow applies for damages and is informed that she cannot get any damages because the aviator not only killed her husband but also told a lie to the insurance company. That is the proposal. The reason the woman cannot have any insurance is that the aviator was guilty of two offences instead of one. That is a monstrous proposition. The insurance company having accepted the premium, surely the law should lay it upon the company to satisfy itself that it has entered into a firm contract with the insured person. If the law makes that clear to the company, then the company will take its own steps to investigate the bona fides of the insured person. But it is monstrous that hon. Members should work themselves up into a state of indignation because of the insurance companies. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet and the hon.

and learned Gentleman opposite, on more than one occasion have almost moved us to tears on behalf of the poor insurance companies.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my argument, and I beg him to accept my assurance that I did not intend it in that sense.

Mr. BEVAN: I am within the recollection of the Committee, and I do not think I am doing the hon. and learned Member any injustice when I say that he solemnly addressed to the Committee the argument that if this were done, the only way in which the insurance company could protect itself against a greater incidence of claims would be by raising the premiums.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: Certainly.

Mr. BEVAN: And that raising the premiums would not conduce to the development of aviation—that was the case put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman below the Gangway.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: But that is very different from the point which the hon. Gentleman charged me with making. I was pointing out that the effect would be that the people concerned in aviation itself would be paying more. I am not concerned with the insurance companies and have no interest in them.

Mr. BEVAN: The argument I am addressing to the Committee is that if the Amendment increases the incidence, the liability should be carried by the insured person or by the insurance company and not by the injured person. We have had arguments addressed to us in defence of the aeroplane companies and in defence of the insurance companies but nobody on the other side says a word about the poor fellow who may be killed.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Oliver Stanley): What did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) say in 1930?

Mr. BEVAN: I am not concerned about what was said then. What I am saying now is that the insurance company must protect itself by examining the bona fides of the insured person and that it is no sort of excuse to advance to the injured person that he cannot be helped because a lie was told to the insurance company. This is a much more serious matter in


the case of aviation than in the case of road accidents or accidents at sea. In the case of aviation the poor fellow who is injured is not a contributing party unless he has eyes in the top of his head. If he goes to sea he takes the risks involved but the only way he can escape the effect of accidents in the air is by getting off the earth. It is surely reasonable to suggest that we should protect the civilian population against these accidents. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet spoke about the complications. What are the complications?

Captain BALFOUR: The complications are sufficient to require investigation by a committee which has given its services for about four months and, as far as I can see, will be engaged for another four months in hearing evidence on a problem which is not at all simple. The hon. Member said that my object was to protect the insurance companies. The point which I tried to make was that this Amendment should not be accepted because it was premature and because this point may be better covered by future Government action based on the report of the committee. The object is not to help the insurance companies but to provide protection in the instances which the hon. Member himself is bringing up—a protection which cannot be adequately provided in the Amendment.

Mr. BEVAN: That is an amazing statement. What more protection can any third person have than the unlimited obligation of the insurance company or the insured person to find all the damages laid down in this Bill without respect to any false statement having been made? This proposal is easy for everyone to understand except those whose minds are obscured by the desire to protect vested interests. The reason why we are having a committee is that it is the most roundabout way of preventing anything being done. But now we have an opportunity of doing something and hon. Members are not discharging their obligations to their constituents in leaving them exposed to dangers against which they can now provide them with protection, and the Attorney-General is not doing himself justice in the position which he has taken up.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: I rise, having no interest in the advance of

aviation or in insurance companies. I hate them both quite impartially. But I cannot sit unmoved at the abandoned nonsense which is being talked. I am all for the protection of the citizen against the dangers of the air. I should be delighted if there were no aeroplanes against which to protect the citizens. But to imagine that this paragraph will be a protection for the innocent citizen against the ravages of civilian aircraft is utter nonsense. It is lifted almost verbatim from the Road Traffic Act, 1934, and when the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), with that charming moderation and quiet voice with which he produces in this House his most amazing misrepresentations of fact, draws a picture of the Poor Law institutions of this country being filled with people with broken legs living on the rates because of the failure of insurance companies to pay insurance, he may know of a case, he may know of two, but I should be very surprised if he could get the cases he knows of into double figures.
When the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) denounced with fury the principles underlying this paragraph and jeers at the President of the Board of Education for his interjection, he was a supporter of the Government of 1930. If this principle is so sacred why did not the then Minister of Transport introduce it? Why did not the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, who was not silent in that Parliament, get up and produce these perorations, this fury and excitement, then? The hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) might have listened to him. Thank heavens the Attorney-General has too much sense. This is a travesty of the proceedings of this House—[Interruption]—and the fact that I should have to get up and make this speech, the fact that the observations of hon. Gentlemen opposite have enabled me to make this speech, is their fault. If there has been anything irrelevant or foolish in my remarks, it is due to the idiotic observations of hon. Members opposite. The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith said this paragraph was necessary to sweep away the evils of the capitalist system, or rather that it was something which might mitigate in some way those evils. What this paragraph does is to protect the fraudulent insurer against the honest


insurance company. I may be old-fashioned and I may be foolish, in the view of hon. Members opposite, but I prefer the honesty of the capitalist system to the necessity for protecting the fraud which the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith seems to think is necessary to avoid it.

10.56 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I do not propose to vie with the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) in his irrelevance, but I might point out that the problem is not one of protecting either the fraudulent insurer or the honest or fraudulent insurance company; the problem is one of protecting persons who are injured by aircraft. If I may reply to the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills), I think he had not read the paragraph about which we are speaking, because he will find, if he reads it, that these conditions are only to be of no effect
as respects any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under Part III of this Act.
That means third party policies. They will still be of effect as regards the liability of the fraudulent insurer. Therefore, his argument that by the insertion of these words you would be protecting a person against his own fraud is invalid, because it is not what the first paragraph of the Schedule says. This is only concerned with the protection of third parties, and it is on that point, and not upon the point either of the insurance company or of the insurer, that we are so anxious.
The hon. and gallant Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour) said he thought it was a good reason for not inserting this Amendment that some committee is considering the matter. That might be a good reason for not passing the Second Schedule, but, unfortunately, we have to pass the Second Schedule, and it seems a serious argument that you should pass it in a bad form because a committee is sitting. He says it would be better covered by Government action at some future time, but the Government are taking action now and not at some future time, and surely the function of this Committee, whether or not some other committee be sitting, is to see that this Schedule is in that form which will

give the best possible protection to the third party. That, I gather, is the universal desire of all those hon. Members who have spoken—that is, if we assume that their protestations are real. If that be so, nobody can doubt that this Amendment will improve the condition of the third party, whatever else they may feel about it. It will make it possible for people to rely upon the provisions of Clause 13 of the Bill, which certainly purports to make certain that the third party will be insured against all liability which may be incurred. Quite clearly, if the insurance company should be able to say, after an accident has occurred, that although this certificate was in existence, yet, because of some previous false representation upon which the insurance was granted, therefore they were not liable to the third party, then the third party would not be getting in fact the protection which Clause 13 purports to give to him.
The only argument that has been advanced is that this might put up the premiums of insurance. Therefore, one has to weigh the benefits to be derived, on the one hand, by increasing the premium and, on the other hand, by giving security to the third party who is injured. There can be no Member of the Committee who, having to weigh up those two matters, would be in two minds as to which of them it is the more important to secure. Surely the thing that is most vitally important to secure is that people flying about in areoplanes should not leave injured or dead people about the country who or whose dependents can recover nothing as a result of the injuries or death. That is the real human problem with which this Clause is dealing. As against that, the fact that an aeroplane owner or company operating an aeroplane may have to pay a higher premium seems to me a matter of very small importance. If that small extra premium is going to kill civil aviation in this country, it must be a very weak sort of thing, because one is proceeding on the supposition that the companies or the individuals who run the aeroplanes will not be able to meet the liability. If they are able to meet the liability, there is no need for the insurance company to increase their premiums, because they will be able under the Schedule to recover from the person who has made the false representation the sum they will have to


pay to the third party. It is only if the person who is flying the aeroplane or who is responsible for it is unable to meet the charge which is rightly decided against him as a result of an accident that the insurance company will be out of pocket as a result of the transaction.
I cannot believe that aeroplane companies and owners are so impecunious and dishonest that it is necessary to increase the premium in cases where aeroplanes are insured if this condition is inserted. It is not as if one were dealing with motor cars, of which there are many hundreds of thousands, many of them in the hands of people who have small resources and who could not perhaps be relied to pay for the accident. The ordinary private owner of an aeroplane roust inevitably be a man of considerable wealth. A company operating aeroplanes certainly ought to be a company with considerable financial backing or it ought not to be operating aeroplanes, because there is nothing so dangerous as aeroplanes

operated by mushroom companies. Therefore, I suggest that there is no valid argument against providing this protection for third parties, a protection which is clearly in accordance with the very clear words of the Clause of the Bill which makes necessary this type of insurance. It would be mere folly to delay making this Schedule as good a Schedule as possible because some committee is sitting which may at some future date suggest some other method of doing it. If they do, a Bill can be introduced and this Measure can be amended. While we are at the job, however, let us make this as sound a proposition as we can. In accordance with the unanimous expression of opinion in the Committee that protection is desired for these persons, there can be no argument that this is not a desirable Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 117; Noes. 174.

Division No. 229.]
AYES.
[11.5 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Parkinson, J. A.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Hall. J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hardie, G. D.
Potts, J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Price, M. P.


Adamson, W. M.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Pritt, D. N.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Banfield, J. W.
Holland, A.
Riley, B


Barnes, A. J.
Jagger, J.
Ritson, J.


Batey, J.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Rowson, G.


Bevan, A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Seely. Sir H. M


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Bromfield, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Silkin, L.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Simpson, F. B.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Burke, W. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cape, T.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cassells, T.
Kirby, B. V.
Sorensen, R. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, C.


Chater, D.
Lathan, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'oht'n-le-Sp'ng)


Compton, J
Lee, F.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leonard, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Daggar, G.
Leslie, J. R.
Thurtle, E.


Dalton, H.
Logan, D, G.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lunn, W.
Walker, J.


Dobbie, w.
McGhee, H. G.
Watkins, F. C.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McGovern, J.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maclean, N.
Westwood, J.


Evans, O. O. (Cardigan)
Marklew, E.
White, H. Graham


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Marshall, F.
Whiteley, W.


Gardner, B. W.
Maxton, J.
Williams, O. (Swansea, E.)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Messer, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Milner, Major J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gibbins. J.
Montague, F.
Wilson, C H. (Attercliffe)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Windsor, W. (Hull. C.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Grenfell, D. R.
Oliver, G. H.



Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Owen, Major G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parker, J.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. John.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Assheton, R.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Apsley, Lord
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Aske, Sir R. W.
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.




Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Pilkington, R.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Guinness, T. L. E. B
Radford, E A.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Guy, J. C. M.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hanbury, Sir C.
Ramsbotham, H.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Hannah, I. C.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Blindell, Sir J.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Rankin, R.


Bossom, A. C.
Harbord, A.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Boulton, W. W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Remer, J. R.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Holmes. J. S.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. I.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hopkinson, A.
Rowlands, G.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hulbert, N. J.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cary, R. A.
Hunter, T.
Salmon, Sir I.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Salt. E. W.


Channon, H.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Keeling, E. H.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Christie, J. A.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Scott, Lord William


Colman, N. C. D.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Colville, Lt.-Col. O. J.
Lambert, At. Hon. G.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Cooke, J. O. (Hammersmith, s.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Simmonds, O. E.


Cooper, Rt.Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh. W.)
Liddall, W. S.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lindsay, K. M.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Llewellin. Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Somerveil, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Culverwell, C. T.
Loftus, P. C.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Lumley, Capt. L. R.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Lyons, A. M.
Spens, W. p.


Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Dugdale, Major T. L-
McKie, j. H.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Duggan, H. J.
Magnay, T.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral sir M. F.


Eastwood, J. F.
Markham, S. F.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Eckersley, P. T.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Tate, Mavis C.


Edge, Sir W.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Elliston, G. S.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Emery, I. F.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Wakefield, w. W.


Erskine Hill, A. G.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Everard, W. L.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Warrender, Sir V.


Fleming, E. L.
Neven-Spence, MaJ. B. H. H.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Furness, S. N.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wells, S. R.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Gibson, C. G.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Gluckstein, L. H.
Patrick, C. M.
Wise, A. R.


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Peake, O.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Goodman, Col. A. W.
Penny, Sir G.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Greene, W. p. C. (Worcester)
Perkins, W. R. D.



Gridley, Sir A. B.
Petherick, M.
TELLERS FDR THE NOES.—


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert War




and Mr. James Stuart.


Bill read the Third time, and passed.

11.13 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 33, line 19, to leave out from "landing," to "or," in line 22, and to insert:
(in whatever circumstances that liability is incurred), an. amount not less than that to which the liability of the insured could be limited under Sub-section (1) of Section twelve of this Act in the circumstances in which that Sub-section applies.
This is a drafting Amendment. The existing words are not quite clear, and the present Amendment was put down to make them so.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. GARRO JONES: This Amendment ignores, by implication, an undertaking which was given by the hon. and learned

Gentleman during the discussion of Section 12 of the Act. When we were discussing that Section, the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to amend it on the Report stage. Now he is proposing an Amendment which he has proposed to amend further on the Report stage. The House almost unanimously refused to accept limitation of the liability in the case of persons, and the hon. and learned Gentleman undertook—and by the undertaking brought about the cessation of opposition to the Clause—on the Report stage to remove from the operation of the limitation the question of damage to persons.

11.15 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Gentleman's memory is at fault. The


House negatived the Amendment that was moved by an hon. Member on the Liberal benches, proposing to remove any limitation in the case of personal injury; and the discussion to which the hon. Gentleman is referring took place on a later Amendment to provide for a £25,000 limit in all cases. The suggestion which I undertook to consider was that there should be a higher limit in the case of personal injury than in the case of damage to property. Whatever figure may be inserted in Clause 12 as the result of that undertaking, I do not think it will necessitate any alteration of the present Amendment, but, of course, if any such alteration should be necessary, it will be made. The Amendment is merely a drafting Amendment to make clear the original intention of the paragraph in the Schedule.

Mr. GARRO JONES: May I say that this is the first satisfactory explanation that has come from the Attorney-General, and I thank him very much for it.

Amendment agreed to.

11.17 p.m.

Mr. PERKINS: I beg to move, in page 36, line 35, to leave out "three," and to insert "four."
The object of this Amendment and of the next Amendment in my name is to give a person accused under the Act the right to be tried by a jury. I understand that at the moment, if the maximum term of imprisonment is not more than three months, the accused has no right to be tried by a jury, and the Amendment would increase the penalty from three to four months' imprisonment, so that the person accused would have the right to be tried by a jury.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This is not a very large point, and I shall be prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 36, line 47, to leave out "date on which it is so sent," and to insert "receipt thereof."
This is a drafting Amendment, to make it clear that the date in question is the date of receipt, and not of dispatch.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 37, line 8, leave out "three," and insert "four."—[Mr. Perkins.]

In line 36, leave out "(owners' third party risks)."

In line 40, leave out "the sections aforesaid," and insert "section thirteen of this Act."—[The Attorney-General.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

THIRD SCHEDULE. —(Enactments applic able to the Secretary of State for Air.)

11.20 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 39, line 13, at the end, to insert:
Part II of the Military Lands Act, 1892.
The object of this Amendment is to enable by-laws to be made for civil State aerodromes, such as Croydon, similar to those which have already been made for military aerodromes.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Minor and Conse quential Amendments to Principal Act.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 43, line 13, to leave out "after the figures '1897' there shall be inserted the words and," and to insert:
for the words and in the case of a county council under Section sixty-nine of the Local Government Act, 1888 as if those purposes were mentioned in that Section ' there shall be substituted the wards 'or.'
This and the following Amendment are simply designed to secure that the London County Council shall have power to borrow money for the provision of aerodromes.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. H. MORRISON: I cannot refrain from thanking the Government on behalf of the London County Council for giving us borrowing powers. We hope this indicates a new, kindlier and more brotherly state of mind and that this precedent which the Attorney-General has so handsomely made will be followed with alacrity when we come to the discussion of our Measure.

11.23 p.m.

Lord APSLEY: If borrowing powers are to be given, I hope they will be used to the greatest extent. At present there is no aerodrome from which you can get into the centre of London under 50


minutes. The Secretary of State makes speeches and says you cannot have an aerodrome in the centre of London without going to Hyde Park. There are many vacant spaces all round the centre of London. [An How. MEMBER: "Hackney Marshes."] Better still, there are Hounslow Heath, Wormwood Scrubs, and Hendon, which is used by the Air Force and could easily be used as a civil airport without being detrimental to the military strategy of the Air Force. I understand that the City of London is suggesting making a new airport at Ilford. I should like to ask if the Air Ministry has gone into it. If you are going to borrow money to spend it in creating a large airport at Ilford, how far is that going to be from the centre of London? How long will it take to get passengers to London? What rail, road and tube facilities are there? The position at present is a disgrace. There is no country in the world which has such bad facilities. I cannot accept the contention that there are no spaces vacant. You have only to fly round London to see many spaces that could be used and, with the borrowing powers that it is proposed to give to the County Council, I hope some measures will be taken to pursue a forward policy.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 43, line 18, after "1893," insert:
or, in the case of the London County Council, under and in accordance with the London County Council (Finance Consolidation) Act, 1912, as amended by any subsequent enactment."—[The Attorney-General.]

11.25 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 43, line 49, at the end, to insert:
Section eleven.—In lieu of this section the following section shall have effect as from such date as His Majesty may by Order in Council appoint:—
'11.—(1) Any services rendered in assisting, or in saving life from, or in saving the cargo or apparel of, an aircraft in, on, or over the sea or any tidal water, or on or over the shores of the sea or any tidal water, shall be deemed to be salvage services in all cases in which they would have been salvage services if they had been rendered in relation to a vessel; and where salvage services are rendered by an aircraft to any property or person, the owner of the aircraft shall be entitled to

the same reward for those services as he would have been entitled to if the aircraft had been a vessel.
The preceding provisions of this subsection shall have effect notwithstanding that the aircraft concerned is a foreign aircraft, and notwithstanding that the services in question are rendered elsewhere than within the limits of the territorial waters adjacent to any part of His Majesty's dominions.
(2) His Majesty may by Order in Council direct that any provisions of any Act for the time being in force which relate to wreck, to salvage of life or property, or to the duty of rendering assistance to vessels in distress shall, with such exceptions, adaptations, and modifications, if any, as may be specified in the Order, apply in relation to aircraft as those provisions apply in relation to vessels.
(3) For the purposes of this section, any provisions of an Act which relate to vessels laid by or neglected as unfit for sea service shall be deemed to be provisions relating to wreck, and the expression "Act" shall be deemed to include any local or special Act and any provisions of the Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, as incorporated with any local or special Act, whenever passed.'
I could make quite a long speech about the Amendment, but I do not think that the Committee desire that I should do so. Section (11) of the Act of 1920 deals with the question of applying the ordinary law as to the salvage of aeroplanes should they suffer disaster in the seas. That Section has been found to contain minor and technical imperfections, and the object of the Clause is to redraft it, so as to remove those imperfections.

Amendment agreed to.

Shedule, as amended, agreed to.

Fifth Schedule agreed to.

SIXTH SCHEDULE.—(Enactments Repealed.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 47, line 32, column 3, at the end, to add:
except as regards any order submitted under Section two to the appropriate Minister before the date of the passing of this Act.
The object of the Amendment is merely to secure that, in respect of applications for orders which have already been made under the Public Works Facilities Act to acquire land for aerodromes, the steps which have been taken shall not be rendered useless, but that it will be pos-


sible to maintain the stage which they have reached and continue under the new procedure. If the Amendment were not inserted, it would be necessary to start the work all over again.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 134.]

Orders of the Day — WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Certain dealings with sand or ballast to be by weight or by the cubic yard.)

11.29 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, at the end, to insert:
(2) No person shall (whether on his own behalf or on behalf of another person) sell, agree to sell, or agree to carry any sand or ballast by the cubic yard, unless the volume of the sand or ballast either is a cubic yard or an integral number of cubic yards or is any such fraction of a cubic yard as may be prescribed or a multiple of such a fraction.
During the Committee stage of this Bill a number of extremely useful suggestions were made by hon. Members, and the Amendments—12 in number—which have been tabled in the name of the Government are destined to carry out the suggestions that were made. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Woods), who has had considerable experience and practical knowledge with regard to the removal of sand and ballast, was anxious to see that it should be possible, when selling sand or ballast by the cubic yard, to sell a quantity between one and two yards, and the object of the Amendment I am moving is to make it possible to sell a quantity of 1½ cubic yards. The Amendment puts the matter beyond doubt, because it makes it clear that sales by the cubic yard must be in quantities either of an integral number of cubic yards or such fraction as may be prescribed in regulations. If the Amendment is adopted it is the Board's intention to prescribe as a fraction, half a cubic yard. That will meet the wish

generally expressed in. the Committee, that small purchasers of gravel, for the purpose of making up a drive or a path, should be protected equally with those who make large scale purchases.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 2, line 22, leave out "the preceding subsection," and insert "this section."

In line 24, leave out "that sub-section," and insert "this section."—[Dr. Burgin.]

CLAUSE 2.—(Receptacles for measuring sand or ballast by the cubic yard.)

Dr. BURGIN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, to leave out "by means of," and to insert:
in, and by means only of a calibration mark on.
The object of this Amendment is to ensure that when measuring sand or ballast in a calibrated receptacle, the receptacle is filled up to the level of one of the calibration marks, otherwise it might be open to argument that so long as a calibrated receptacle is used, it is permissible to measure quantities other than those represented by actual calibration marks, for instance, measuring up to some point between two calibration marks. That is not the intention. The vessel should be calibrated so that we can measure by reference to the calibration mark. This Amendment gives that provision legislative effect.

Amendment agreed to

Dr. BURGIN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 19, after "have," to insert:
when filled in all parts of the receptacle as nearly as the sand or ballast will admit, and.
This Amendment is necessary to exclude the possibility of fraud by putting a false bottom or some other object in the receptable before sand or ballast is filled into it for measurement. The whole object of the Measure is to prevent fraud and to make it clear, as far as words can, do so, that there shall be no juggling with the receptacle before you begin the measurement. This Amendment will make that practice impossible.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 20, leave out "therein," and insert "in the receptacle."—[Dr. Burgin.]

CLAUSE 4.—(Conveyance motes in respect of sand or ballast.)

Amendments made: In page 6, line 11, leave out from "inspector," to "and," in line 13.

In line 33, leave out from the second "or," to "as," in, line 34, and insert "its volume in cubic yards."—[Dr. Burgin.]

11.35 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: I beg to move, in page 6, line 43, at the end, to insert:
(3) No person shall sign or use, or cause to be signed or used, for the purposes of this Section a conveyance note stating the volume of any sand or ballast in cubic yards unless the volume so stated either is a cubic yard or an integral number of cubic yards or is any such fraction of a cubic yard as may be prescribed or a multiple of such a fraction.
This Amendment ensures that where sand or ballast is being sold or conveyed by the cubic yard, the quantity loaded into a calibrated vessel will be a quantity coming up to one of the calibration marks, otherwise the merchant or haulier could fill in any odd amount on any particular vessel, making it difficult if not impossible, for inspectors to detect malpractices. Again, the common sense of the House will be that we should make the Measure workmanlike; and I recommend the acceptance of the Amendment.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: May I ask whether the calculation is being arrived at before the journey commences or afterwards? There may be a loss of material by vibration and in other ways on the road.

Dr. BURGIN: I am obliged to the hon. Member for raising that point. The matter is already covered by the Bill. Provision already exists in the Bill for seeing that the shaking down which takes place during the journey or any loss of weight by moisture and evaporation shall be taken into account. They are not affected by the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 7, line 1, after "person," insert "contravenes or."

In line 8, leave out "or produce," and insert "to produce or to deliver."—[Dr. Burgin.]

CLAUSE 5.—(Inspection, weighing and measuring of sand or ballast and vehicles conveying it.)

Dr. BURGIN: I beg to move, in page 8, line 25, to leave out "one mile," and to insert "two miles."
During the discussions in Committee the question as to how far an inspector ought to have power to require a vehicle to be moved to a weighbridge came up for consideration. There were some hon. Members who pointed out that in some parts of the country weighbridges were few and far between, and others who pointed out that if there was a requirement that a vehicle should he moved a long way and it was then found that the weight was correct after all, the owner of the vehicle would suffer a good deal of loss. It was also pointed out that any distance was arbitrary. You could draw a circle round a main line station and a haulier living outside might say that he was outside the particular mileage and that he was all right as long as he did not come within the blue line. All these considerations have to be taken into con
sideration by administrators. I think that the limit of one mile might be too small, and while any limit is arbitrary, two miles will make the distance twice as good as one mile.

Amendment agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the. House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Nineteen Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.